Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CALDERDALE WATER BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Bill be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Capital Gains Tax (Lettings by House Owners)

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to inform those concerned that house-owners letting off part of their homes are assessed for capital gains tax on that part of the value of the property at the time of sale.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): The notes enclosed with the return forms explain that full exemption will not be due if only part of the house has been used as the taxpayer's residence. The question of lettings is referred to in the general capital gains tax booklet and in a separate leaflet about owner-occupied houses.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the Chief Secretary aware that there are many people who, without expecting an early sale of their houses, have let off rooms, and have found subsequently, when they have had to sell their houses, that they are liable to capital gains tax, having believed that they would be relieved of the entire levy?

Mr. Diamond: It has been explained in the tax itself, and in the leaflets and tax documents that accompany the tax return, that relief is limited to that part of the house which one owns and occupies.

Inland Revenue (Staff)

Mr. David Howell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further steps he is taking to relieve understaffing and overloading in the Department of Inland Revenue.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I am now studying the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates which was published last week and contains recommendations of these matters.

Mr. Howell: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer accept that this report greatly reinforces the case for moving to a simpler self-assessment method of taxation, particularly in the non-P.A.Y.E. sector? Is he aware of the very unfavourable comparison between our own Inland Revenue and the American Inland Revenue service, where about the same number of revenue staff handle more than three times as many personal tax returns?

Mr. Jenkins: I would not agree with all that the hon. Gentleman says. This is a complex matter which, like many other matters raised by the Estimates Committee—and I value its report—needs to be studied carefully, but in not too leisurely a way.

Mr. Barnett: Is not this matter very much over-stated? Are not inspectors of taxes finding it much simpler to deal with corporation tax computations whilst clerks deal with the majority of capital gains computations, and, is it not a fact that inspectors of taxes, having dealt with most of the back duty cases arising on bank interest disclosures, are now actually looking for new work by making capital checks on individual taxpayers?

Mr. Jenkins: I have not actually heard of that but my impression is—indeed, it is more than an impression; it is my belief—that there is serious overstrain in the Inland Revenue Department, though I think that this could be exaggerated.

Trade Figures (Economic Policy Presentations)

Mr. David Howell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now discontinue the practice of translating monthly trade figures into projected


annual rates in his presentations of economic policy.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I cannot discontinue a practice which I have not begun.

Mr. Howell: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer in any case accept that if each month a three-month rolling total of the trade returns was published, as suggested by Samuel Brittan in the Financial Times, this would go a long way towards clearing up the situation, and will he make the position clear in people's minds?

Mr. Jenkins: We have tried for some time past to get the public to look at the monthly trade returns on a three-months' rolling total basis, and it is certainly the case, as I am glad the hon. Gentleman acknowledges in his supplementary question if not in his original Question, that I have never referred to an annual rate on a monthly basis as opposed to a six-monthly or three-monthly basis.

Motor Cars (Sales)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the sharp fall-off in the home market for cars and the imbalance thus created in this export industry, he will now assist home sales by regulations to reduce the initial hire-purchase deposit for cars and to relaxing in general the hire-purchase conditions; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary's reply to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on 25th November, 1969. All these matters are kept under continual review, but it would be premature to relax restrictions at this time.—[Vol. 792, c. 193–4.]

Mr. Roberts: Would not my right hon. Friend accept that unless something is done soon there will be considerable short-time working and unemployment in this industry, which may even affect the resources available to develop new models? Would he not accept that it is high time that Treasury policy was used to counteract the seasonal cycle in the home market for cars?

Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. I think that to act at the present moment would probably be to exaggerate rather than counteract,

since one is moving fairly rapidly into the period in which there will, if normal conditions follow, be a seasonal upswing.

Sir G. Nabarro: Notwithstanding the splendid export performances in motor cars and commercial vehicles during the last 12 months, will not the Chancellor of the Exchequer accept the views of the whole motor trade today that it will be nearly impossible to increase further export performance at today's prices unless sales on the home market can be increased?

Mr. Jenkins: There are a long-term and a short-term problem. Clearly, the longer-term problem affects levels of investment in the industry, which is of importance. On the shorter-term problem I would not accept without critical judgment the views of those in the motor trade who naturally have a close interest in this matter, as I understand, but it has to be borne in mind that in five of the past seven months the seasonally adjusted figure for registrations at home has been higher than in the similar period of 1968.

Road Fund Tax (Pensioners)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what is his estimate of the annual cost of allowing people of pensionable age and other social security benefit recipients, subject to the possession of a valid driving licence, to road-tax one car for £10 a year; if he will take steps to introduce this £10 road tax concession for these groups; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. William Rodgers): I regret that information on which a reliable estimate could be based is not available. We shall bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind, but I do not think that a concession of this kind would be the fairest way of helping those in need and I doubt that it could be adopted without the risk of widespread abuse.

Mr. Roberts: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that in a car-dominated constituency such as mine, a growing number of pensioners wish to run their cars after retirement, and the present level of road fund tax is an intolerable burden on such car-minded pensioners?

Mr. Rodgers: I shall bear that in mind, though I do not necessarily accept my hon. Friend's conclusion.

"Scottish Budget"

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many man-hours were involved in the production of the recently published "Scottish Budget".

Mr. Diamond: Departments have not kept a detailed record of their work on this question, but I estimate that the time spent amounted to approaching 800 man-hours, excluding secretarial services and the printing of the report by the Stationery Office.

Mr. Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he thinks the exercise achieved?

Mr. Diamond: Certainly. The exercise achieved the normal one of supplying the answer to Members of Parliament who have asked for this specific information.

Mr. Lawson: Has not the exercise helped to dispel the harmful fallacy, which was given widespread currency in Scotland, that Scotland was subsidising England?

Mr. Diamond: It is not for me to inquire the reasons why hon. Members put Questions down, but I do my best to answer them.

Mrs. Ewing: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the "Scottish Budget" was inspired guesswork against the background of admitted ignorance of Scotland's vital statistics? Will he explain why the findings of the Catto Commission in 1952 were not adopted to provide a proper basis for a breakdown of the Scottish figures, and will he provide that basis for future years?

Mr. Diamond: The information which has been given has been valuable. It has taken a great deal of time. It is most unfair of the hon. Lady to suggest that it was not carefully done. It was carefully done to satisfy those hon. Members who had asked for the information.

War Loan (Repayment)

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the repayment of war loan.

Mr. Diamond: I have nothing to add to previous Government statements on this matter.

Mr. Pardoe: Is it not disgraceful that members of the public who invested in these loans, often from a sense of patriotism rather than for pecuniary gain, should be made to suffer the full burden of subsequent disastrous economic policies, and will he agree that the record of this loan shows that no one should ever again invest in the word of a British Government?

Mr. Diamond: No, Sir; I could not possibly subscribe to that statement. I recognise and affirm that it is regrettable that many people have lost money on this stock, though many others have gained money. But one has to stick to the terms on which the stock was issued and on which people knew for certain that they would subscribe.

Mr. Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of repaying the loan over a period, say, at 10 per cent. per annum for 10 years? Let us make a start.

Mr. Diamond: No, Sir. This matter has been considered most sympathetically by me and by many of my predecessors. Every time everyone has reached the identical conclusion, that it is not possible to deal with it along the lines suggested.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider allowing those who have held their stock for a very long time to convert it into a similar stock with a redemption date?

Mr. Diamond: No doubt the hon. Gentleman knows that the stock originally had a redemption date, and there was a conversion offer made, which was accepted by those who went into the stock. Therefore, everyone did it with his eyes wide open. I share everyone's regret—I did my best when on the other side of the House to give voice to it—and I looked into the matter most sympathetically, but I reached the same conclusion as everyone, including—when he was the Economic Secretary—the present chairman of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Barnett: As this war loan was at 109 in the 1940s, has it not been a normal investment risk? I declare an


interest in that I myself bought some at 45. Apart from the personal gain to myself, would it not be utterly ridiculous to repay at 100, and will my right hon. Friend once and for all squash the idea that there is unfairness or that it should be repaid at 100?

Mr. Diamond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he seems, as in most other things, to have managed his affairs a good deal better than I do; I bought at a very different price.

Blind Owners of Guide Dogs (Tax Allowance)

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to grant a tax-free allowance to blind owners of guide dogs.

Mr. William Rodgers: I am afraid that my right hon. Friend could not adopt the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. Pardoe: I cannot say that I am grateful for that unhelpful reply. Will the hon. Gentleman take into account that purchase tax on dog foods has put many blind people in difficulty, and, further, will he give particular attention to the problem of the blind person who has a dog which is too old to carry on doing the job and who, therefore, faces the question whether to destroy the dog and buy a new one, since he cannot possibly afford to keep two dogs?

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman raises some interesting questions. We are sympathetic towards the broad object which he has in mind, but we have to bear in mind the position of other handicapped people and those blind persons who may not be able to have a dog.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend says that he cannot accept what is suggested. Will he give the reason and deal with the question of cost? These people have blind persons' pension books. Could there not be a simple system allowing them the cost of what is involved, or a reduction, or, on the other hand, an increase in pension? It should be simple to operate, and it could not cost much.

Mr. Rodgers: I did not say that it was impossible to operate, although there are problems. I said that we have to consider the problems of other handicapped people

who have special needs of their own and also those blind people who do not have dogs. We do not wish to discriminate in that way, although we are very sympathetic towards the broad object which hon. Members have in mind.

Letter of Intent

Mr. Marten: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent has the undertaking given in the first sentence in paragraph 10 of the Letter of Intent of 22nd May, 1969, been fulfilled.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: This was not an undertaking but a statement of fact which was wholly true when it was made and remains so.

Mr. Marten: But did not that paragraph undertake that the statutory powers relating to the incomes policy would, in effect, continue till the end of 1969, and is it not a breach of that undertaking to the I.M.F. that the incomes policy has now been breached in what amounts to a blitzkrieg of pay increases?

Mr. Jenkins: The undertaking specifically related to the statutory powers; the hon. Gentleman has paraphrased rather than quoted the sentence, but I think that he has paraphrased it accurately. It is the fact that until the latest date for which we have statistics wage movements have been slightly lower in 1969 than in 1968.

Mr. Higgins: Is not the Chancellor sticking to the letter rather than the spirit of the undertaking, and, to give some indication of what has happened, could he tell us by how much prices and wages have gone up compared with the norm?

Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir, not without notice. [An HON. MEMBER: "But the Chancellor must know. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not be so foolish. I will not give approximate figures off the cuff without notice. The hon. Member for Worthing, who follows these matters—I am not sure about his hon. Friend behind him—can find the published statistics quite easily.

Capital Gains Tax (Industrial Mergers)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is


aware that in recent and proposed industrial mergers capital gains of several million pounds sterling have been and will be made by individual shareholders; and, in those cases where the shares have been transferred to Bermuda or the persons to Switzerland, if he will take steps to ensure that taxation is not avoided.

Mr. Diamond: I am aware that substantial gains may be made as a result of industrial mergers. Tax avoidance schemes in this field, as in others, are kept under review, and amending legislation will be introduced if required.

Mr. Jenkins: In the case which I have in mind, is it not a fact that Dr. McDonald would have made a £7 million capital gain if the Plessey-B.S.R. merger had gone through, and, as Dr. McDonald has transferred his shares to Bermuda and himself to Switzerland, will my right hon. Friend say whether in such circumstances he would be able to levy capital gains tax?

Mr. Diamond: My hon. Friend knows that I am unable to deal with the affairs of any individual taxpayer.

Import Deposits Scheme

Mr. Blaker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from other countries about the proposed extension of the import deposits scheme.

Mr. Diamond: The Government of the Irish Republic have made representations which we shall be discussing with them later this month.

Mr. Blaker: The Minister will be aware that the E.F.T.A. Council, at its recent Ministerial meeting, expressed concern about the continuance of the import deposits scheme and agreed, in effect, not to take any decision on its legality. Is that not rather unsatisfactory, and will the Government ask the E.F.T.A. Council to resolve the matter? What is the position regarding the I.M.F. and the G.A.T.T.?

Mr. Diamond: The exact position as regards the E.F.T.A. decision is contained in the communiqué of the meeting of 6th–7th November, which said:
While welcoming the recent evidence of improvement in the economic situation of the

U.K., expressed concern at the continuation of the import deposits scheme. The Ministers instructed the Council at official level, which had already been charged with keeping the situation under review, to re-examine the effects of the scheme before the next Ministerial meeting.
That re-examination is going on.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Would the right hon. Gentleman clarify his original reply? Does he mean that just one governmental representation has been received, or is he including representations from trading associations and individuals?

Mr. Diamond: I am including governmental and inter-governmental, if I may so refer to E.F.T.A., representations.

Purchase Tax

Mr. Barnett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to change the title of purchase tax and describe it as a value-added tax.

Mr. Diamond: No, Sir. I think this would lead to confusion.

Mr. Barnett: As both taxes are on consumer expenditure but one is a multistage nightmare of a tax and the other a simple single-stage tax, would it not be as well and help towards our eventual entry to the Common Market if we called purchase tax a value-added tax?

Mr. Diamond: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was making the point that this is a sweet-smelling rose, but the fact is that it is not a tax on value-added, although I agree with him, and we are grateful to him for pointing out, that there are many similarities.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before he makes any speeches against a value-added tax in the country, that 40 per cent. of the trade of this country is carried on with countries which have a value-added tax system, and to the extent that a value-added tax helps their exporters it means that our exporters are at a disadvantage?

Mr. Diamond: I will try to recollect everything that the hon. Gentleman has said so that I can convey it at a suitable time to my right hon. Friend. Meantime, I cannot accept what he says about the effect on exports.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the lower limit for purchase tax exemption has remained at £500 since 1940, when this form of taxation was inaugurated as a temporary war measure; what was the notional adjusted and comparable figure at 1st December 1969 allowing for declining money values; and what changes he proposes.

Mr. Diamond: The original exemption limit of £2,000 was reduced to £500 on 3rd November, 1941, following complaints of unfair competition. Allowing for the change in money values the current equivalent of £500 in 1941 is estimated to be rather more than £1,400. Despite this change, my right hon. Friend is satisfied that £500 is still the appropriate level for this exemption, whose purpose is to exclude cases which would in general involve disproportionate costs of collection.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that grubbing around among thousands of small producers to collect relatively tiny sums of purchase tax leads to uneconomic exercises generally? Could not we have for purchase tax an exercise similar to that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer conducted last April in the context of income tax when a very large number of small payers were relieved?

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right that if those circumstances applied it would be foolish to incur an uneconomic cost. I can assure him that the matter has been looked at. There is no uneconomic cost in collection at the present level. Even at the present level, we get objections by manufacturers on the ground of unfair competition.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would my right hon. Friend accept the implied compliment of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) to selective employment tax, which is a much easier tax to collect than the one to which the hon. Gentleman takes exception?

Mr. Diamond: I am always prepared to accept compliments to Treasury Ministers, but I thought that your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, ruled that any compliment to a Treasury Minister was distinctly out of order.

Mr. Speaker: It is not usual, anyway.

Sir G. Nabarro: It was not a compliment.

Domestic Credit Expansion

Mr. Barnett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent, and how quickly, he estimates changes in domestic credit expansion affect levels of employment and economic growth.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: A discussion of this complex matter would take more time than would be acceptable for an answer to a Question.

Mr. Barnett: Does my right hon. Friend now accept the rather more optimistic view of the future prospects put out by the National Institute recently? If so, would he consider relaxing domestic credit expansion to the extent of bringing forward the payment of investment grants, which would help specifically those companies which are investing in new manufacturing investment?

Mr. Jenkins: I would not accept the latest view put out by the National Institute, and I note that I have a considerable body of support among commentators for not so doing. I would not agree that it was entirely a more optimistic appraisal. It was optimistic in one respect and unduly pessimistic in other respects. I am bound to bear in mind that the National Institute has changed its view of the future fairly often and quickly in recent months.

Mr. Hordern: In view of the severity of the credit squeeze likely to operate in the next three months during the taxpaying season, what proposals has the right hon. Gentleman to raise the ceiling under which the clearing banks are operating?

Mr. Jenkins: I have no statement to make at the moment. I will watch the matter carefully. It is possible to exaggerate the severity of the revenue quarter, since I do not believe that most well-managed companies wake up on 1st January and find, to their surprise, that they have tax to pay.

Mr. Higgins: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the question of timing is crucial as to how long this takes effect? Could he give in broad limits what he thinks the lag is likely to


be between the change in domestic credit expansion and the level of employment?

Mr. Jenkins: To some extent it depends on the form which domestic credit expansion takes. This is a complex matter which could usefully be discussed in debate or other fora. But I do not think that a useful answer can be given in reply to a question.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to have details of changes in domestic credit expansion during the second quarter of the current financial year.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Figures will be published in the December issues of Financial Statistics and of the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he subscribes to the very official-sounding forecast carried in The Times this morning to the effect that domestic credit expansion this year is likely to be substantially below the figure he gave in his Letter of Intent? If this is so, should he not withdraw the Import Deposits Scheme, which has, after all, increased the severity of the squeeze since the Letter of Intent was written?

Mr. Jenkins: I suspect that forecasts in The Times sound more convincing to the hon. Gentleman than they do to me. It is too early to make a judgment.

Selective Employment Tax (Pensioners)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much selective employment tax was retained, after repayments on all grounds from pensioners over 60 years of age being women, pensioners, both men and women, over 65 years of age, and pensioners, men and women, over 70 years of age, respectively; and what is the estimated loss in revenue from abolishing selective employment tax for pensioners over 60 years of age for women and 65 years of age for men.

Mr. William Rodgers: We estimate that on the basis of employment figures the amount of tax due to be paid and not refunded in respect of women aged 60 to 65 is £5·5 million a year and in re-

spect of men and women over 65 £4·5 million. The cost of giving full relief from the tax in respect of these employees would therefore be of the order of £10 million.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would not the hon. Gentleman concede that the collection of selective employment tax for all men and women over State pension age militates against their useful employment and leads to undue unemployment among elderly people who would otherwise be found sedentary work? Could not he consider at an early date relieving all those drawing State pensions of the S.E.T. liability?

Mr. Rodgers: No, Sir. The relief is sufficient incentive to encourage the employment of elderly people. But this is something which we always have in mind and watch carefully.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman take into account not just the yield of selective employment tax but the cost of its collection, the administration expenses involved, and the fact that it is a disincentive for people to go on working who would be much happier doing so?

Mr. Rodgers: We will think about that as well.

Purchase Tax (Motor Vehicles)

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now seek to reduce the purchase tax on motor vehicles.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: No, Sir. I shall be reviewing this matter at the appropriate time.

Mr. Price: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, in spite of the new registrations figures which he quoted earlier, there is an approaching crisis in home sales? If he feels unable to do something about the matter this year, would he seriously consider studying how, for next year at any rate, he can produce measures from his Department to even out the difference between summer and winter sales?

Mr. Jenkins: As my hon. Friend will be aware from answers which I gave to supplementary questions on Question No. 7, I do not entirely accept his premise.


But for next year I will carefully consider what he has said as well as other representations.

Statute Book (Reprinting)

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state his estimates for the costs of reprinting the Statute Book by conventional methods, and by computer typesetting, respectively.

Mr. William Rodgers: This work may be the subject of competitive tender, so it would be undesirable to give estimates of cost.

Mr. Macdonald: If my hon. Friend has no idea of the comparative costs, on what basis does he contemplate the relative advantages of the two methods?

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend misrepresents me. I did not say that I had no idea. I said that it would be undesirable to give estimates of cost for good reasons related to tendering.

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what date he expects to reach a decision whether to reprint the State Book by conventional methods or by computer typesetting.

Mr. William Rodgers: Not until a decision is taken on the form and timing of the reprint.

Mr. Macdonald: Will my hon. Friend take well into account the several advantages of the computer method, involving the existence of a permanent record, the fact that it can be amended easily, and that selective statutes can be extracted easily if necessary? Will he bear those facts in mind in coming to a decision?

Mr. Rodgers: Certainly, we shall.

Selective Employment Tax (Regional Commercial Activities)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has investigated representations made to him from the North-East that the selective employment tax has had an inhibiting effect on some commercial activities which ought to be encouraged in the interests of regional employment; and what conclusions he has reached.

Mr. Diamond: The North East Development Council made a number of representations to me on these lines. I have replied that I do not think S.E.T. is a handicap to the development of commercial services of the kind which the council is particularly anxious to attract to the region.

Mr. Boyden: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is an over-concentration of services like banking, insurance and even architectural advice in London, and that there needs to be more growth in these services in the North-East? Will not he look at it from that point of view?

Mr. Diamond: I share my hon. Friend's view that there can be a over-concentration in London. Certainly the Government have set a pattern, which I should have thought others would be happy to follow, of dispersal wherever it is possible and appropriate.

Dame Irene Ward: In view of the fact that unemployment in the North-East is increasing, is the right hon. Gentleman certain that all his views are right? Certainly we in the North-East do not think so? As he does not seem to be having the proper effect, perhaps he would look at some of the ideas emanating from those of us who live there and understand what goes on there?

Mr. Diamond: I am always anxious to listen to advice from those who are on the spot. As the hon. Lady knows, preferential assistance to the Northern region is running at about £75 million a year, and there has been considerable success in attracting manufacturing industry to the area. I can only conclude, therefore, that the situation would be worse if the Government had not adopted these policies.

Mr. Milne: While agreeing that incentives to the North-East are having a valuable effect on the economy there, would not my right hon. Friend also look at the effect of the selective employment tax, since its removal would give us a diversity of industry which is lacking at the moment in our development?

Mr. Diamond: I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that if we attract manufacturing industry which provides the greater measure of employment.


exhypothesi the proportion of services is smaller than it would be otherwise.

Selective Employment Tax (Building and Construction Industry)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to modify the selective employment tax to give the building and construction industry a financial incentive to employ winter building techniques to the full.

Mr. William Rodgers: No, Sir.

Mr. Boyden: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is in the national interest that as many building firms as possible should use the latest techniques in winter building with a view to getting the maximum production, but that individual firms are reluctant to do it because they look at the costs? Would it not be desirable to modify S.E.T. to encourage builders to do this?

Mr. Rodgers: I know my hon. Friend's close interest in and knowledge of the problem, but he is in error if he feels that any remission of S.E.T. would necessarily lead firms to invest in the sort of equipment required for building in the winter.

Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear that in the building industry S.E.T. has a very bad effect on employment? Is it not also clear that building is not a service industry and that it is high time this ludicrous tax on it was abolished—the quicker, the better—in the interests of employment?

Mr. Rodgers: I am afraid that I cannot agree with any of those propositions.

Programme of National Recovery (Taxation Report)

Mr. Turton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the Report on Taxation sent to him by the Programme of National Recovery; and what action he proposes to take upon its recommendations.

Mr. William Rodgers: Yes, Sir to the first part of the Question; none to the second.

Mr. Turton: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that on 20th June last year the Prime Minister said with respect to previous recommendations from the same

economists that he could not agree with the analysis or the conclusions and yet, within nine months, his Government had adopted their main recommendations? Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to abbreviate the period of gestation with regard to these proposals, which would, if applied to the last Budget, have reduced public expenditure and taxation by 29½ per cent.?

Mr. Rodgers: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be prepared to look at the pamphlet again. At first sight, it seems a bit old-fashioned and unsophisticated. It talks of
a return to the pre-war principles of financial management",
which is not what some of us on this side of the House would want to see.

Mr. Eadie: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, although one can look at new forms of taxation, it would be a good idea to look at the present administration of taxation within his Department? The situation at the moment is just short of verging on a scandal, with people not getting replies to letters referring to their income tax affairs.

Mr. Rodgers: I know the problem which my hon. Friend has in mind. We are looking at it and trying to do our very best to help.

Hire Purchase

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce regulations to ease hire-purchase restrictions.

Mr. Diamond: No, Sir.

Mr. Lewis: Why not? The Chief Secretary should recognise that by the turn of the year there will be a turn-down in trade in various aspects because of the difficulty that people have in ordering goods on hire purchase due to Government restrictions. Could not they be eased now if the economic situation is better?

Mr. Diamond: The short answer is that the export performance of the industries most affected by current restrictions is generally highly satisfactory.

Mr. Macdonald: In view of the emphasis now placed on the control of


money supply, would it not be better to consider exercising control over hire purchase by setting a top limit to the credit available and leaving the finance companies to exercise that control by discriminating amongst the credit worthiness of their customers, rather than these set and arbitrary percentage deposits?

Mr. Diamond: That is a tenable point of view, and I will consider it carefully. I think that our present system is an improvement, but I will consider it.

Bookmakers' Offices and Shops (Test Bets)

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much he estimates will be invested by customs and excise officers in test bets at bookmakers' offices and shops, in the current financial year; and what check is made of the winnings of those officers who invest public money.

Mr. William Rodgers: About £100,000. Test betting is strictly controlled by senior officials.

Mr. Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman think that these exercises are in the best interests of the taxpayer, bearing in mind that the Revenue men seem to be very inexpert punters? Last year, £98,000 was staked by them, but they collected only £78,000 winnnigs.

Mr. Rodgers: They did rather better than I would have done in similar circumstances. Bearing all considerations in mind, this is an important way of helping to ensure that the law is enforced.

Money Supply (Scottish Bankers' Representations)

Mrs. Ewing: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from Scottish bankers about the present Government policy on the supply of money; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Diamond: None, Sir.

Mrs. Ewing: In view of the recent rise in unemployment in Scotland as against the decreases elsewhere, has the right hon. Gentleman not considered easing the current restrictions on bank lending, which have a direct effect on

unemployment? Is his policy not like putting a starving man on a diet of bread and water to cure his neighbour's obesity?

Mr. Diamond: I would draw the hon. Lady's attention to the undoubted benefits to our external position which has already resulted from a tight money policy at home. In the view of my right hon. Friend, it would be imprudent to relax these policies until the improvement in our balance of payments has been firmly secured.

50P Coin

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the comparative cost of printing 126 million 10 shilling notes and minting 126 million 50 pence coins, including materials and distribution costs.

Mr. William Rodgers: The note costs considerably less than the coin to produce. But the coin has a life of about 50 years against about five months for the note. If the once-for-all cost of the coin is compared with the recurrent cost of the note over the life of the coin, the coin is much cheaper.

Earl of Dalkeith: Why are the Government so averse to giving the public a choice between notes and coins, as is the case in every other European country where there are coins of a denomination as high as this?

Mr. Rodgers: There is a considerable saving for the taxpayer here, and, though I understand the problems which have arisen with the new coin, I hope very much that they will be overcome.

Mr. Dempsey: If this coin is much more economical than the 10s. note, why did not the Government get rid of the £1 note on the same basis?

Mr. Rodgers: I think that my hon. Friend slightly misrepresents what I said. I said that there was an economy in having a 50p piece instead of a note.

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that only imperfectly forged 50 pence coins are likely to be brought to the notice of the police, he will invite banks throughout the country to return sample coins to the Mint for expert checking at regular intervals.

Mr. William Rodgers: No, Sir.

Earl of Dalkeith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is any forgery risk against which he should be taking steps to safeguard the public?

Mr. Rodgers: Certainly there is some risk, but it should not be exaggerated.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the East End of London the police have already issued statements to the effect that there are forgeries of these coins circulating in the area, and they are asking the public to be careful? Will he see if some steps should not be taken to safeguard the public?

Mr. Rodgers: I will look at that, but I think that it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Dollar Loans (Service Charges)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to exercise his right to waive the service charges on the dollar loans contracted by Her Majesty's Government between 1945 and 1950 due at the end of this year.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: No, Sir.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I suppose that we should be grateful for small mercies. Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is typical of the Labour Government that, not content with loading the next Tory Government with an enormous burden of new debt, they should also have virtually exhausted the right to waive payments on the debts incurred in their last period of office?

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman should not ask a supplementary question prepared for "Yes, Sir" when the answer is "No, Sir."

European Economic Community

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the standard of living in Great Britain has fallen since 1958 in relation to living standards in Common Market countries, details of which are available to him from international sources; and to what extent he estimates that this loss of wealth to British families will be recovered on

Great Britain joining the Common Market.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Between 1958 and 1967—the latest date for which figures are available—G.N.P. per head rose by roughly 4 per cent. per annum in the Six, and by roughly 2½ per cent. per annum in the United Kingdom.
The Government believe that membership of a large and growing market would help to promote a more rapid improvement in the standard of living.

Mr. Mayhew: Does this not confirm the estimate that if Britain had joined the Common Market when it was started and shared in the growth of living standards of the members of the Common Market, the average family in this country would now be £5 a week better off? Will the Chancellor draw the attention of the British people to the threat to their living standards contained in the anti-market propaganda?

Mr. Jenkins: I believe that I was an even more premature European—if that is the word—than my hon. Friend. Before drawing that deduction he should bear in mind that the rate of growth in the countries of the Six varies considerably between one and another.

Mr. Biffen: Why is the right hon. Gentleman unable or unwilling to answer the second part of this Question? Is it that he knows these figures are not yet available, and if they are not, does he expect them to be published in the statement which the Prime Minister has promised us on the consequences of joining the Common Market?

Mr. Jenkins: I would have thought that the second half of the Question was highly hypothetical and bound to be the subject of argument, one on which we can all take up different positions, rather than one which can be answered simply on the basis of fact.

Taxation (British-Owned Commonwealth Plantations)

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated average rate of Corporation Tax together with equivalent local taxation in the countries concerned paid by British-owned tea, palm oil and rubber


plantations within the Commonwealth from information available to him from international sources.

Mr. Diamond: Sufficient information to make the estimates asked for is not available.

Mr. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that excessive taxation discourages investment in developing countries in industries in which the British would normally play a part? Would he bear this in mind when dealing with fiscal policy?

Mr. Diamond: That is why I was saying that there is no such excessive taxation.

Tax-Free Sales Scheme (Overseas Visitors)

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will modify the tax-free over-the-counter sales scheme introduced recently for visitors from abroad.

Mr. Diamond: The scheme will be reviewed at the end of the year, in consultation with the principal trade organisations concerned.

Mr. Mills: Would the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the scheme is unduly complicated for small export orders and causes excessive paper work for comparatively small refunds? Has he the figures available for the average refund and the cost of making each refund on each export order, which I believe is comparatively minor?

Mr. Diamond: I have not got that information. It will be included in the review, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my information is that in general the scheme seems to be working quite smoothly.

Income Tax (State Retirement Pensions)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost of exempting State retirement pensions from income tax.

Mr. Diamond: About £150 million for a full year.

Mr. Lipton: While I do not want to anticipate the Chancellor's Budget State-

ment, could my right hon. Friend give some consideration to the abolition of the earnings rule, or at least make some concession for the benefit of pensioners, who have already paid for their pensions?

Mr. Diamond: The earnings rule is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Would it not be better to make the contributions allowaable once again for tax purposes?

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman knows the history of this. He knows that there was a compounding of the allowance given at a particular time.

Selective Employment Tax (Reddaway Committee's Report)

Mr. Milne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive the report of the Reddaway Committee on selective employment tax; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. William Rodgers: My right hon. Friend still expects to receive Professor Reddaway's initial findings by the end of the year.

Mr. Milne: Can my hon. Friend speed up the issue of this report and its examination by his Department, in view of the widespread disquiet arising from this tax, which affects employment?

Mr. Rodgers: We shall do our very best, though not necessarily for the reasons which my hon. Friend has outlined.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIVE HARE COURSING

Mr. William Price: asked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received about live hare coursing during the past 12 months.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): About 90, Sir.

Mr. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us, on this side of the House at least, who have supported various liberal measures in relation to human beings would dearly like to come to a decision on at least one matter involving animal welfare? Is


there any logic in society banning cockfighting and bull-baiting yet allowing stag hunting and live hare coursing?

The Prime Minister: I have made it a rule not to vote on Private Members Bills, and the Government have not taken up a position on this. From what I know of this so-called sport from my former constituency, I regard it, as I am sure most hon. Members do, as a barbarous anachronism.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the vast majority of people in the country, and hon. Members, are in favour of the abolition of this so-called sport? Would not the Government use their own means of overcoming the methods by which people are using the procedures of the House to hold up Bills of this kind?

The Prime Minister: I should think that practically all civilised people are against hare coursing. We must see what is the outcome of the intention, notified by one of my hon. Friends, to introduce a Bill on this question.

Mr. Heller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the last two or three weeks the League against Cruel Sports has received well over 150,000 letters in support of the Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Arnold Shaw) is to introduce? Is it not time, despite the Government's attitude of neutrality, for them at least to give time to ensure that there can be a vote in the House, so that the full democratic process shall be carried out?

The Prime Minister: Since my hon Friend has secured a place in the Ballot we had better see how it goes before going into the question raised by my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — WATER CONSERVATION AND SUPPLY (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES)

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination of responsibilities between the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister of Housing and Local Government in the conservation and supply of water originating in Wales and used in

major centres of population of England: and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a Question by him on 22nd July.—[Vol. 787, c. 354.]

Mr. Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although he and his Government may be satisfied by the situation, the Welsh people are dissatisfied and are angered by the apparently endless series of threats to land and water resources in Wales? Is he aware that this situation exists because he has not yet fulfilled his election promise about the Welsh Water Board? Does he intend to keep his word?

The Prime Minister: There are always problems of this kind when natural water boundaries do not coincide with political and administrative boundaries. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would want to agree with the view of the Council of Europe in its European Water Charter that we should follow natural basins rather than administrative boundaries. The biggest threat to water supplies in Wales is from those who have been blowing them up.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the co-ordination between these two Departments? Would he bear in mind that at the moment the Welsh Office is being pressed into accepting English recommendations on the reform of local government in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire, and in the process being forced to abrogate its own carefully considered proposals?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is wrong here. I mentioned in the debate on the Gracious Speech what my right hon. Friend is doing in the matter of consultations with local authorities. He is not borrowing anything from England at all; he is trying to get what is the best solution for that particular area in Wales. This Question relates to water, and, as my hon. Friend will know, as a result of what we said we would do the Water Resources Board has had a special Welsh Committee since 1965. This was strengthened in February of this year by the appointment of five more Welsh members, three of them representing Welsh farming interests.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD MAYOR'S BANQUET (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Tom Boardman: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his speech at the Lord Mayor's banquet at the Guildhall on 10th November.

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his speech at the Guildhall on 10th November, 1969.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his speech at the Guildhall on 10th November.

The Prime Minister: I would refer to my reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) on 13th November.—[Vol. 791, c. 151.]

Mr. Boardman: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Was not the reference in his speech to economic growth misleading, in that, according to Treasury figures, the rate of such economic growth has been declining?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. If the hon. Member will study the figures published and keep the situation under close review he will see that the trend is now upwards for production and productivity. I am sure that he will also applaud what I said at the Guildhall about the vast improvement in our balance of payments.

Mr. Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend recall a passage in his speech when he dealt with visible trade balances, and recall that, according to earlier statistics, this country has comparatively rarely had a favourable balance of visible trade since the American colonies got their independence? In those circumstances will he supply the Leader of the Opposition with figures for any coast-to-coast broadcast that the Leader of the Opposition may wish to make about an independent British economy?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has all the figures, and gives a great deal of thought to them. It is

a fact that over remembered times it has been very rare for us to have a surplus in visible trade month in and month out. It has required the invisible balances and other factors to produce the figures that I gave at the Guildhall. They will shortly be brought further up to date when we publish the balance of payments figures for the third quarter.

Mr. Blaker: I return to the figures that the Prime Minister gave in that speech in respect of the increase in our exports over the last five years. Since we all know the Prime Minister's passion for accuracy when he makes a major speech, should he not have pointed out that our exports, expressed in dollar terms, over that period have increased only about half as fast as those of the rest of the world?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member will look at the figures that I gave on that occasion he will see that I gave them not only in value terms, in sterling, but in volume terms—in terms of physical quantities measured by the index figure accepted by all parties—and this shows the most remarkable increase in the volume of exports for many years.

Mr. Maudling: Does not the Prime Minister agree that after devaluation volume is not the accurate indicator, as volume goes down in terms of dollars?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The volume of our exports is the best possible index of our export effort. The right hon. Gentleman can play with the figures as much as he likes but one day he will have to come to terms with the fact that, contrary to all his prophecies, Britain is now paying her way and has one of the best balance of payments surpluses in the world.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEPARTMENTS (ANNUAL REPORTS)

Mr. Moonman: asked the Prime Minister if he will ask Departments to submit regular annual reports on their activities.

The Prime Minister: Many Departments already publish annual reports but I am not convinced that it would be appropriate or useful to make this a general requirement.

Mr. Moonman: Although the Ministry of Technology Report is a model presentation for a Government Department, will my right hon. Friend think again and see whether, in view of the Government restructure, there is not an even greater need to know exactly what the Government Departments are doing and whether they are setting management by objectives so that there can be a proper check and assessment?

The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend will agree that, in addition to those Departments which publish annual reports, many other additional pieces of supplementary information are provided—for example, the information published by the Ministry of Technology to which my hon. Friend referred. We have now not only the traditional Supply Days for examining the records of Government Departments on an annual basis; we have more Select Committees to do this—and staffed for this purpose.

Mr. Crouch: Will the Prime Minister take into account the growing concern among hon. Members at the infrequent appearance of Ministers in the House to answer for their Departments? May I particularly draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications will have had exactly one quarter of an hour to answer Questions in the House between last October and the coming Christmas?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: asked the Prime Minister if the speech of the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity to the Institute of Directors in London on 6th November, on industrial relations, represents Government policy.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Baker: Does not the Prime Minister agree that in her speech in the House his right hon. Friend said that this was by no means the worse period of decay in industrial relations in terms of working days lost? Will he confirm or deny that statement?

The Prime Minister: I could not quite hear all that the hon. Member said. I

certainly confirm that he is probably reading correctly a report of what my right hon. Friend said in terms of working days lost. Of course, although no one condones the loss of working days this year or any other year—and this year has been a very difficult one—there have been worse years, as my right hon. Friend said. I believe that the year when the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) was Minister of Labour was an extremely bad year, and there were some not very good years when other right hon. Gentlemen opposite had responsibility as Minister of Labour. But that does not excuse the loss of work this year, and I should be the last person to attempt to condone it.

Mr. Atkinson: I am sure that the House was immensely impressed by the previous answer which my right hon. Friend gave, to the effect that we have had the finest year ever in terms of productivity and exports. Is it therefore not altogether too surprising that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity should now be talking about wage restraint to the extent of introducing a banding system between 2½ per cent. and 4½ per cent. in view of the tremendous record that we have had this year?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend in his speeches has not always suggested that he expected a tremendous record in these matters this year. We should not be so satisfied with the record as to be complacent about the dangers to our future export orders either if goods are not delivered because of unconstitutional stoppages—even though such stoppages form a small proportion of the total amount of days lost—or because of the danger of pricing ourselves out of markets that we have won with such difficulty because of inflationary costs.

Mr. Fernyhough: Despite what my right hon. Friend has just said, will he remind hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that in his Guildhall speech he made it clear that on one Friday speculators cost this nation more than all the disputes to which he referred in his speech that night?

The Prime Minister: I did say that on that Friday, that for the most frivolous and irresponsible reasons and because of


rumours which were reported, the loss to our reserves on that one day was greater than the total loss from all the disputes in the motor car industry this year. It is a fact that because of the failure of—the attempt of certain people to push sterling off parity last December—and it was a concerted operation, as we saw at the time—ache money came back, and other money lost is still coming back, as my hon. Friend will have noticed from the publication of the gold figures today.

Mr. Lane: Coming back to the Question, what steps are the Government taking to reverse the present deterioration in the state of industrial relations?

The Prime Minister: As has been explained by my right hon. Friend, the House will have many opportunities to debate this in the present Session and with the legislation that she will be introducing.

Oral Answers to Questions — CARIBBEAN COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Prime Minister whether he will pay an official visit to the Caribbean Commonwealth countries.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so at present, Sir.

Mr. Fraser: Nevertheless, will the Prime Minister recognise the great mutual interest between this country and the Caribbean, and the strong bonds of good will that exist, and institute a fairly high level initiative into ways of increasing investment in the Caribbean, for instance, in nuclear power stations, and by negotiating commodity agreements in respect of goods which are not now subject to agreement, such as bananas and citrus products?

The Prime Minister: It does not require a visit. I had the opportunity of discussing some of these questions with four of the Caribbean Commonwealth Prime Ministers when they came here for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting last January, and only recently—I know that my hon. Friend knows this because he has put down a Question on the Order Paper about it—I had dis-

cussions with the Prime Minister of Jamaica, and the question that he has mentioned came up on that occasion. I shall be dealing with my hon. Friend's Question on Thursday.

Mr. Brooks: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very considerable anxieties which are now being expressed in Guyana about her future territorial security? As this is an almost unprecedented case of a Commonwealth country having over half its territory threatened by a larger neighbour, will my right hon. Friend consider taking the initiative, perhaps at the United Nations, to try to ensure a peaceful outcome to this dispute?

The Prime Minister: This question was discussed very fully between the Prime Minister of Guyana and myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Prime Minister of Guyana was here a few months ago. We have kept in very close touch with the Prime Minister of Guyana on this question. In our view, there is no reason at all to justify any threat to Guyana's security in this way, and we have given full support to Guyana in all matters affecting her security.

BRITISH ROAD SERVICES (UNOFFICIAL STRIKE)

Mr. R. Carr: Mr. R. Carr (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what action she is taking over the unofficial strike of B.R.S. workers which is threatening delivery of Christmas parcels.

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mrs. Barbara Castle): Negotiations on pay are continuing between the parties, and it would not, therefore, be appropriate for me to take any action at the present time. I am, however, keeping closely in touch with developments and deplore the effect unofficial action may have on the delivery of Christmas parcels.
As negotiations are continuing, I would urge the trade unions to advise their members to resume normal working.

Mr. Carr: It is all very well for the right hon. Lady to deplore this. Is she aware that Christmas is now only just


over three weeks away? Should she not take, by special inquiry or other urgent means, specific action to try to insure that the public gets its Christmas parcels in time?
Is the right hon. Lady also aware that, while she is urging the trade unions to advise their members to resume normal work, if correctly reported—and I emphasis "if"—the secretary of the union concerned seems to be making remarks which are not in keeping with the binding obligation given to the Prime Minister in June?

Mrs. Castle: If the right hon. Gentleman means that he wants me to take "urgent action" to get this dispute settled, my reply is that negotiations are continuing. B.R.S. is currently giving consideration to a new claim that has been put in and the procedure has not yet been exhausted.
As to action to get parcels distributed in time for Christmas, we have not reached the point where there is any serious threat. However, any alternative methods of distribution would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.
As to the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I am not responsible for Press reports.

Mr. Bessell: Will the right hon. Lady make personal representations to the workers concerned, because a good deal of suffering and a great deal of disappointment will be caused to people who would otherwise receive their Christmas gifts?

Mrs. Castle: I hope that the Answer I have given is a form of personal representation to the workers concerned. I am negotiations are continuing, it is to be deplored that this unofficial action should continue, thus endangering the safe distribution of parcels.

Mr. Peyton: Will the right hon. Lady confirm or deny reports that road haulage leaders were flabbergasted at the extent of the demands? Is not this a development of the situation we have seen ever since the dustmen's strike, that the cry of "Give us a dustmen's rise" is the epitaph on the whole of the Government's policy?

Mrs. Castle: I cannot confirm the reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers. B.R.S. is in the middle of negotiations and should be given the opportunity to Conduct them.

Mr. John Page: Is the T.U.C. in its new rôle intervening in this unofficial dispute?

Mrs. Castle: Mr. Feather has been informed of the situation—

Sir Knox Cunningham: Too late.

Mrs. Castle: —and he takes the view that, as negotiations are still continuing, there is no point in his intervening at this stage.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Why does my right hon. Friend take action against the lower-paid workers, but refuse to take action when I send her details of dozens of cases of company directors increasing their salaries consistently by as much as 50 per cent.? Why act only in the case of the nurses and the dustmen and not in the case of company directors?

Mrs. Castle: I do not know what action I am accused of taking with the dustmen. I thought that there was a slight difference of view between the two sides of the House as to what had happened in the case of the dustmen and the action taken there.
I am not reporting action in this case. I am telling the House that negotiations are continuing. In that situation it is totally wrong that unofficial action should take place. I think that the workers ought to get back to work to allow the negotiations to continue.

Mr. R. Carr: Will the right hon. Lady answer my second question? Is she satisfied that this union is publicly, and behind the scenes, taking positive action which is in tune with the undertaking that it gave to the Prime Minister last June?

Mrs. Castle: As I said in reply to the right hon. Gentleman initially, I urge the trade unions to advise their members to resume normal work. The union is officially engaged in negotiations. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the unofficial action is to be deplored and I hope that the trade unions concerned will join me in deploring it.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

TEACHERS' PAY

Mrs. Thatcher: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the current situation with regard to teachers' pay.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Edward Short): In March, the Burnham Committee concluded an agreement on new scales of salary for school teachers in England and Wales to run for two years, until 31st March, 1971. The agreement represented an increase in the salary bill of 7·1 per cent. and the cost was £33 million on the total salaries bill.
In October, the Teachers' Panel presented a new claim for a further increase, to run from 1st April, 1970—that is, in mid-term of the current agreement—of £135 a year for all teachers. I estimate that this would cost £44 million, or 8½ per cent. of the total salaries bill. At a meeting of the Committee on 10th November the Teachers' Panel rejected a Management Panel offer of £50 and the Committee then agreed to adjourn for about one month. It is to meet again on 15th December.

Mr. Fernyhough: On a point of order. As the N.U.T. and the N.U.S. have been coming out on strike for over a fortnight, Mr. Speaker would you please explain how this can be a Private Notice Question?

Mr. Speaker: Any question of allowing a Private Notice Question must be left to Mr. Speaker. He cannot say why he does and he cannot say why he does not, except that he does not far more often than he does.

Mrs. Thatcher: As the final decision on how much the teachers can now be offered through Burnham is the Government's, and as this is now an unprecedentedly serious strike, will the right hon. Gentleman decide the amount urgently so that Burnham can be reconvened this week and at least he will be doing something to avert a prolonged strike?

Mr. Short: The final decision on how much the teachers can be offered rests with the Management Panel. I have two representatives on the panel. The

panel consists of a number of organisations, all of which must be consulted and a great many of whom wish to consult their local finance committee chairman. It is a long process. The teachers themselves agreed to a month's adjournment That month's adjournment is now taking place.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend instruct his two representatives on Burnham to support a substantially improved pay offer to the teachers?

Mr. Short: I told the House that the offer made to the teachers will be for the decision of the Management Panel on the Burnham Committee.

Mr. Pardoe: Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman accepted that the time has come to end the charade whereby we think that the negotiations are between the local authorities and the teachers? They are between the Department—that is, the Government—and the teachers. Will the Secretary of State now accept my suggestion that this dispute, and the whole matter of teachers' pay and its structure, should be referred to an independent inquiry or to the National Board for Prices and Incomes?

Mr. Short: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that this is a charade, it is another example of how out of touch with real life the Liberal Party is. The hon. Gentleman's second point may have substance in it, and I am prepared to examine it.

Mr. Christopher Price: In giving advice to the Management Panel of the Burnham Committee, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the chief bitterness lies among the younger teachers, and particularly the younger men teachers with family responsibilities? Will he see whether a method can be devised whereby the lower-paid teachers receive a larger increase than the higher-paid teachers?

Mr. Short: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. The teachers' claim is for an increase of £135 across the board.

Sir D. Renton: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the view of Edmund Burke that example is the school of mankind?

Mr. Short: Yes, and it is a pity that the Conservative Party did not learn that a long time ago.

Dr. Gray: Is my right hon. Friend surprised to hear that a junior teacher wrote to tell me that his salary was less than that of the second groundsman on the playing field of his school? Does not he think that the teachers' demand is an extremely moderate one which should be immediately met?

Mr. Short: I have said on many occasions that I think the teachers ought to receive more pay. We are now in the middle of negotiations. We agreed a salary increase costing £33 million earlier this year which was to last for two years. However, negotiations have started for an interim award, the local authorities have made an offer which would cost a great deal of money, and we are now considering with the local authorities what further amount can be offered, if any.

Mr. Heath: As the Secretary of State has said, have not the local authorities finished consultations amongst themselves and have not they had consultations with the Secretary of State, and the decision is now awaited? As the negotiations are to continue, should they not be resumed at the earliest possible moment, rather than be put off to the original agreed date of 15th December?
Will the Secretary of State consider reconvening the meeting earlier, having discussed with his Cabinet colleagues and with his representatives on the Management Panel what is possible—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] It is a very important matter, even if hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway do not think so. Once the dispute is settled, the Secretary of State, with the Management Panel and the teachers, can take a fresh look at the whole salary structure of teachers, which lies at the root of the problem?

Mr. Short: The date of 15th December for the next meeting of the Burnham Committee was decided by the local authorities. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's last point, I agree that there may well be a case now for either the Burnham Committee or another body to look at the whole structure of teachers' salaries.

Mr. Heath: We all know that the date was fixed by the Management Panel, but the situation now has become much more critical and it is difficult for children who are missing their education and for the parents. Will not the Secretary of State therefore be more flexible and speed up his discussions with his colleagues, give advice to his representatives on the Management Panel and reconvene the meeting earlier?

Mr. Short: The right hon. Gentleman can best help this situation if he will stop, and ask his hon. Friends to stop, playing politics with this difficult matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have the hon. Lady's broadcast of last Sunday if the House wishes me to read it.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise does not help.

Mr. Short: Let me repeat, the Management Panel decided the date of the next Burnham Committee meeting. I do not decide the date; I have nothing whatever to do with the date.

BEAGLE AIRCRAFT COMPANY

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): With permission, I will make a statement about Beagle, and apologise in advance for its length.
When the Government decided in 1966 to take over the Beagle Company, there was a reasonable possibility of the company becoming self-sufficient within a few years. These views were in line with those of the Plowden Committee on the Aircraft Industry, which had recommended that the Government should give assistance to the building of light aircraft, but should review progress from time to time if the light aircraft business were not approaching the objective of self-sufficiency within a few years.
As was explained to the House during the passage of the Industrial Expansion Bill, the company then expected to break even in 1972—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult for the Minister to make a statement against a background of conversation.

Mr. Benn: The company's board has recently reassessed the position and put revised proposals before my Department. Despite considerable achievements during the intervening period, the board has represented strongly to me that a commercially viable future would require the development and introduction of a wider product range, including new designs of twin-engined aircraft.
Production would be needed on a large scale, demanding larger sales, including significant penetration of the American market. Such a programme would require additional working capital of £6 million over the next few years, and probably more later to build on the foundation which the board would by then have laid. This reassessment puts the break-even point three years further on.
After giving the most careful consideration to these proposals, the Government have regretfully concluded that, having regard to the need to contain Government expenditure, there is not sufficient priority to justify the investment of further public funds in this enterprise in the face of the many competing demands on national resources.
In the circumstances, the board of Beagle Aircraft Ltd. has had no alternative but to ask its bankers and the Government to appoint Mr. Kenneth Cork as receiver and manager as the appropriate step for the preservation of the undertaking and the assets of the company. This the bank and the Government have agreed to do. I am not sorry that we made this effort to bring the industry back on its feet. In this, we have been excellently supported by the managers and workers of the company, who have made the most valiant efforts. I hope that those parties who have recently expressed interest in the acquisition of the company will come forward with firm proposals, which will secure the employment and the long-term prospects inherent in the aircraft already developed.

Mr. Corfield: This is a very serious statement. My hon. and right hon. Friends naturally share the right hon. Gentleman's hope that a company will be found to come forward to rescue the continued production of these two aircraft. Will the right lion. Gentleman tell us what public funds are involved, and will

he cast his mind back to the serious misgivings expressed by my hon. Friends during the passage of the Industrial Expansion Bill, when he assured the Committee that he was quite confident of the commercial soundness of this investment?

Mr. Benn: The amounts involved are £3·3 million before acquisition to Pressed Steel, the purchase of £1·1 million and £1·6 million in loans since which have to be set off against the realisable assets which will depend upon the work done by the receiver. I would simply say to the hon. Gentleman that there is a commercial risk in all aircraft projects, many of them conducted by private companies as well, and this is inherent in the business involved.

Mr. Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a most disappointing report, and does he realise that if the company disappears completely the market will be left open almost solely to the American manufacturers? Secondly, what about the outstanding orders amounting to many hundreds for the Beagle Pup? Is there no way in which these can be met?

Mr. Benn: Like my hon. Friend, I greatly regret the statement which I have had to make today, because, with many other hon. Members, I very much hoped that this company would be viable. Various tentative offers have been made in the last few months. I very much hope that the offers will now come forward, and that the matter will be able to be handled by the receiver and the manager, who will have in mind the point made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Lubbock: In view of the adverse publicity which the bringing in of the receiver will have on the Pup and the Bulldog, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the board of the company could not negotiate its sale to any potential purchaser?

Mr. Benn: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I would not have made my statement had we not attempted, in the intervening period from the time that the prospects for the company altered, to achieve exactly what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but I think that, in the circumstances, we have taken the right


decision, and I am not unhopeful that the long-term propects of this aircraft may be secured.

Mr. Maxwell: I appreciate that the Minister was entirely right in providing public funds for this attempt to gain a foothold for the Beagle in an advanced market, but will he say what steps he is taking, in consultation with his European colleagues, about the possibility of their joining in saving Beagle as a European company? Furthermore, in the light of Beagle's future, what steps is he taking to prevent other advanced industies which the Government have helped from similar trouble.

Mr. Benn: I do not think that there is a parallel between the case of Beagle and other advanced industries to which my hon. Friend has referred. As to the possibility of establishing a new format in which this aircraft might be maintained, this is a matter which has received attention, and will continue to receive attention.

Mr. Monro: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement, while not unexpected, will cause great disappointment among those interested in the light aviation industry in this country? Will he make clear that the failure was not because the Pup is inefficient, since it is a very good aircraft, but must be due to the financial background of the company?

Mr. Benn: I am very glad to make that clear. This is neither a criticism of management nor the workers, who have an excellent record of industrial relations, nor of the design of the aircraft. But to make the company viable in future it was felt necessary to bring forward proposals involving substantial further investment which, after deferment of profitability and increased cash flow, we did not feel it right to support.

Mr. Snow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this decision, although understandable, is much to be regretted? Is he aware that the market for light aircraft is growing and sales of this company's products might be enhanced if certain long-distance flyers, female and otherwise, had not interested themselves in the American aircraft?

Mr. Benn: It would not be right to blame private pilots for failure of the Beagle. It was a popular aircraft and secured orders abroad, but, as I have said in connection with the aircraft industry and other industries, the object of investment by Government is to make money by making the project viable. It is not sufficient to get orders for aircraft which are not covered by that expenditure. This was the basic problem.

Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this regrettable outcome was not only foreseeable but foreseen? Is he further aware that he is to be congratulated on the self-restraint which has led him to stop pouring further public funds into a losing project and that this should discourage him from such future ventures.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Member puts a sharp point very courteously, but the fact is that there is a possibility of failure in a number of projects which Government supports. If I were to carry his argument further there would be a very strong case for withdrawing support from a number of private companies. It would be wrong for me to suggest that there is any difference between the Government backing their judgment in respect of a public company or a private company. The hon. Member was right in saying that when it is clear that success cannot be achieved the right thing to do is to cut our losses, as in this case.

Mr. Brooks: In his initial statement my right hon. Friend made reference to the possibility of penetrating the American market. What detailed market evaluation has been carried out in the United States? Can he say whether there was any indication that penetration of the American market might have been hindered by non-commercial factors?

Mr. Benn: I do not think that there is a problem of non-commercial factors of the type my hon. Friend probably has in mind, but the problem in the light aircraft business, where marketing skill now approaches that of the motor car industry, is that one faces a rather different problem than simply designing a good and popular light aircraft.
I am encouraged in this because some of the companies which are now expressing interest in the Beagle are, in fact,


American companies and might have better marketing arrangements for making use of such design.

Mr. Ridley: While agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman in the decision he has taken, does he accept that it might he better, when advanced technology in this and other fields is concerned, rather than owning the company to do what the Americans do by making grants for development without nationalising the organisation?

Mr. Benn: The overwhelming majority of the money involved was the grants to the company to keep it going, but Pressed Steel had decided to pull out entirely at a time when the Plowden Committee had recommended some limited support for the light aircraft industry. Therefore, we had no option in this case but to take over Beagle. Looking back, although, in the end, this has not worked out as we hoped it might, I cannot think that it would have been right for the Government to be so conservative as never to take a risk even though some of these risks might not be justified.

BILLS PRESENTED

EQUAL PAY BILL

Mr. Christopher Norwood; supported by Mr. David Winnick, Mrs. Anne Kerr, Mr. Sydney Bidwell, Mr. Norman Atkinson, and Mr. John Lee, presented a Bill to establish the principle of equal pay; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

PET ANIMALS ACT 1951 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Sir Ronald Russell; supported by Sir Frederic Bennett, Mr. Peter Bessell, Mr. Burden, Mrs. Joyce Butler, Sir Beresford Craddock, Mr. John Hall, Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine, Mr. William Hannan, Sir Gerald Nabarro, Dr. Shirley Summerskill, and Mr. Turton, presented a Bill to amend the Pet Animals Act 1951; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 30th January and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

OABERS OF THE DAY

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.55 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill represents a most important step forward in the safety of life at sea and in the modernisation of the Merchant Navy, and improves the conditions of service and amenity at sea for seafarers. It is a Bill that will be generally welcomed by all in the shipping industry and, I would have thought, from all quarters of the House. It is a long-awaited and much-needed reform.
Hon. Members will remember that as a result of the seamen's strike in 1966 a court of inquiry was set up by the Minister of Labour under the distinguished chairmanship of Lord Pearson. The court produced its final report in February, 1967. This report, which was, in general, accepted by both sides of the shipping industry, has been the basis for subsequent negotiations within the industry and for the Bill which we are now considering.
The Pearson Report was in two parts. The first part contained valuable recommendations about industrial relations in the shipping industry. It has been the basis for negotiation which has since taken place within the National Maritime Board and I understand that considerable progress has been made in reaching agreement upon the steps to implement it.
The second part of the report contained various suggestions for revision of the Merchant Shipping Acts in so far as they apply to the terms and conditions of service of seamen. This second part of the Pearson Report has been the starting point for the present Bill. It is, therefore, right that at this stage I should pay tribute both on behalf of the Government and on behalf of both sides of the shipping industry to Lord Pearson and the members of the court of inquiry for a most valuable report. Their report has indeed provided an excellent foundation on which to fashion the Bill.
I should like also to acknowledge with gratitude the great help and assistance which we have had from both sides of the shipping industry, to the National Union of Seamen, the Merchant Navy and Airline Officers Association, and the British Shipping Federation. They have been most helpful.
In short, therefore, the results of the Pearson Report have been progressed on two fronts. On the one hand, an agreement has been worked out in the National Maritime Board about the industrial provisions, and, on the other hand, the Government are now bringing forward the Bill in order to revise the provisions in past Merchant Shipping Acts so as to sweep away outdated and obsolete requirements and to provide a better basis for the future.
I am sure that I am right in saying that, in general, the attitude of both sides of the shipping industry is that the implementation of the two results of the Pearson Report, that is implementation of both the industrial provisions and the legislative provisions which we are considering today, is, broadly speaking, an acceptable package. No doubt one side or the other may have some reservations about some particular part of the provisions. There has been some sensible give and take and I believe that neither side would wish to press their objections to the extent of prejudicing the implementation of these provisions as a whole. The overall result now achieved should be a considerable step forward for the efficiency, safety and general well-being of British shipping and for the lives of those who serve in British ships.
As the House knows, the Pearson inquiry dealt only with merchant seamen. However, many of the provisions in the Bill are applicable also to fishermen. Indeed, it is right that they should apply to fishing vessels and to fishermen so that they too enjoy the advantages that will flow from this new legislation. After all, fishing vessels are ships and fishermen are seamen. There are, however, some differences in conditions in the fishing industry from those in the merchant marine and these make some differences desirable in the statutory provisions.
While the fishing industry was not a part to the negotiations in the National Maritime Board which followed the Pearson Report, nevertheless while the Bill was being drafted there have been consultations with the various representative organisations of that industry and I should like to acknowledge with gratitude the great help which we have had from them—in particular, the Transport and General Workers' Union and the Trawler Federations.
It would not have been right to leave the fishing industry subject to the archaic provisions of the old Merchant Shipping Acts which we are now sweeping away. In these circumstances, most of the provisions of the Bill will apply to fishing vessels and fishermen, and Schedule 1 contains some additional special provisions for them. There are, however, some differences which seem appropriate, especially regarding discipline, and I shall have more to say about that later.
While on the subject of fishermen, I must add that my predecessor as President of the Board of Trade received last July the very valuable Report of the Holland-Martin Committee on Trawler Safety. He said at the time that the Government had decided in principle to accept the recommendations of that report, subject to consultation with the fishing industry about the details and about financing. This consultation is at present proceeding. It is, however, possible for us to implement some of the provisions of that report in the Bill, such as control of work and rest periods and certification of officers.
The central theme of the Bill is modernisation of the statutory requirements which at present govern life at sea. Some of these are really quite ancient, and some have their origin as far back as 1850. The present provisions on the subjects which we are discussing today are mainly contained in Part II of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and Parts III and IV of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, though some parts of subsequent Acts are relevant also. I mention this to stress, as did the Pearson Report, the striking antiquity of many of these provisions.
I think it right to say that the age and the archaic nature of some of those


provisions, set in the conditions of the 18th and 19th centuries, have been blamed for much of the unrest in the shipping industry in recent years. Many of the provisions are far too rigid and out-of-date. Some are harsh in their application; many are obsolete and do not reflect the realities of modern industrial life. We therefore propose to remove these obstacles to industrial peace and to foster more modern developments.
I think that we have struck the right balance. On the one side, the Bill contains provisions about conditions of living and working at sea and protection from abuse and exploitation ashore, particularly when seamen are abroad. On the other side, there are provisions concerned with the maintenance of good order and discipline for the preservation of safety in both the public interest and that of the seamen.
I must emphasise the paramount concern of us all with the maintenance and improvement of standards of safety at sea. This is a fundamental part of the background to the Bill. Against this background, the aim of the Bill is to create circumstances in which the terms and conditions of service of seamen can be maintained and improved. I fully recognise that this is very largely a matter of industrial arrangement within the industry. However, in the special conditions of seafaring life, statutory provisions are necessary to protect the arrangements from abuse and exploitation and to ensure that agreements are maintained.
The Pearson Report called for a new Bill which would jettison many obsolete provisions and much unnecessary detail. This has been a formidable task; 400 Sections of old Acts were reviewed and, as a consequence, over 200 of them will be repealed and will not appear either in the Act when passed or in regulations made under it. Pearson recommended that the Bill should be designed to deal with matters broadly by principle and policy and to foster and not inhibit future developments. The report suggested that the details and administration should be left to regulations made under the Bill.
The Government have accepted that recommendation, and, as a result, the Bill is flexible and is largely of an enabling nature. It gives power to make regula-

tions over a wide range of subjects. It has always been the practice of the Board of Trade to consult as widely as possible before making regulations in shipping matters. However, I thought it right to give particular emphasis to this point in view of the wide range of powers of regulation which are sought in the Bill. There is, therefore, in Clause 94 a firm requirement that consultation shall take place with both sides of industry before regulations are made.
I turn now, briefly and in broad outline, to the provisions of the Bill. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be dealing with some of these in greater detail in his speech at the end of the debate if he is so fortunate as to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
First, there is a group of Clauses, Clauses 2 to 19, which deal with employment on ships and payment of wages. Seamen attach considerable importance to the protection given them by their articles of agreement. This is a contract of employment which deals with their employment on a specified ship or ships for a definite period. The system of providing for a crew agreement of this type is retained in the Bill, but we have made provision for more flexibility. The form and contents of the agreement may in future be developed more freely by the industry. There will no longer be the requirement that the engagement and discharge of seamen should take place before a Board of Trade official, although he will still have overall power to supervise where necessary.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The Bill is not clear on whether it is intended that the Board of Trade should provide a model crew agreement. Is that so?

Mr. Mason: The question whether a model ought to be provided is, I suggest, a good topic for the Committee stage, and there is no reason why it should not be sensibly discussed there.
As I have said, we do not think that it will be necessary for a Board of Trade official to be present at the engagement and discharge of seamen in future, and we hope thereby to save some Government staff. I should add that the character and conduct markings on the discharge of seamen will be abolished. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] No doubt,


those of my hon. Friends who are aware of seamens' complaints will welcome that. We hope, therefore, to save some Government staff.
On wages, a number of archaic and obsolete provisions will be dropped. The Bill will provide for arrangements which will retain the protection needed and enable the Board to ensure that there is no abuse and that checks can be made to see whether there is satisfactory compliance with the statutory requirements about manning. I should add that, although the system of crew agreements is fundamental, seamen are often in the regular employment of a shipping company or the industry, and the Pearson Report rightly looked forward to the development of more general contracts in the future. There is, therefore, provision in Clause 2 for powers of exemption from crew agreements where the Board is satisfied that the seaman is adequately protected by alternative arrangements.
There is a further group of Clauses, Nos. 20 to 26, which deal with health and welfare—in short, the conditions of living and for medical treatment on board. There are no major changes here, but there is the introduction of some improvements in detail, and also considerably more flexibility through powers to deal with such matters to a greater extent in regulations than is at present the case. This section of the Bill, therefore, makes great advances for the seaman: character and conduct markings will be abolished on discharge books—no necessity for a Board of Trade official at engagements and discharge—better articles of agreement—improved arrangements for hearing disputes.
I now turn to Clauses 27 to 33 and 34 to 38, which deal with the important matters of discipline and safety. A measure of discipline is vital for safety and efficiency at sea, for the sake of both the ship and the seamen. On the other hand, there is no doubt that there is need to modernise and bring up to date the present statutory provisions. In all this the Report of Lord Pearson's Committee has been most valuable. The recommendations of that committee reached the conclusion that it was clear beyond doubt that a special disciplinary régime of some kind is required by the special conditions of seafaring life.
Discipline is necessary in the interests of safety in order to secure, promote and co-ordinate action by the crew on any occasion of emergency for saving the passengers, the crew, the ship and the cargo from the perils of the sea. Discipline is necessary in the interests of efficiency in order to secure the proper operation and handling of the ship and its equipment at all times.
Also, discipline is necessary for preserving law and order in the confined and inescapable conditions in which a ship is a total institution and in which the seaman works, eats, sleeps and spends his leisure time in the same limited area and with approximately the same people as his workmates, companions or neighbours. Discipline is, therefore, necessary in the interests of safety, and its preservation is of the highest importance in the public interest; but it is necessary that it should be kept in a way which is as much in keeping as possible with the requirements of modern life.
There are four main ways in which misconduct at sea can be treated. The Pearson Report recognised and found room for them all in a pattern of measures necessary to meet all circumstances, and this is the pattern which is followed in the Bill. First, misconduct can be regarded as a breach of contract and dealt with as a civil liability. Most offences will probably be dealt with in this way and there are provisions in the Bill about civil liability. Secondly, misconduct could be dealt with on board ship by a fine imposed by the master or some other authority. This procedure would be suitable for dealing with minor offences on board. Thirdly, there is the disciplinary procedure of the industry in which a joint committee ashore reviews misconduct at sea. The development of these arrangements is most certainly to be encouraged.

Captain Walter Elliot: Clause 36 refers to a ship's disciplinary committee. Who does the right hon. Gentleman visualise will serve on that committee?

Mr. Mason: The Pearson Report visualised, and I agree, that officers and crew men on board would make up these disciplinary committees. Of course, this is to be an experiment on board some ships and we shall have to see how


it works It is one of the possibilities held out by Pearson. At some ports, with the co-operation of the Transport and General Workers' Union, disciplinary committees have already been established and to some extent work quite effectively. Here we have a possibility of getting away from the rigid system on board ships which we have had in the past.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: The right hon. Gentleman refers to "some ships" being used for the experiment. How will these be selected?

Mr. Mason: I do not think that I should be responsible at this stage for selecting the ships. If the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Standing Committee on the Bill, he will no doubt hear many ideas put forward about how this should be done. Considering the size of the Merchant Navy, if the experiment is to be carried on it will not be confined to the "Queens" but will have to be in selected vessels ranging from the more massive to the cargo and smaller type of freighters.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I agree with the establishment of disciplinary committees. But we must take particular care of the person who is to be disciplined. Has my right hon. Friend anything to say about representation on a man's behalf in these circumstances?

Mr. Mason: That was also mentioned in the Pearson Report and in due course will be mentioned in my speech. A right will he gradually developed through this experiment for a seaman, even when he appears before the master, to have a friend representing him. This is a flexible system we are developing. The seaman appearing before the master will be able to have a friend with him. This and the creation of these committees on hoard will open the way to a better disciplinary procedure aboard ship than hitherto.
Lastly, the more serious cases of misconduct can be treated as statutory offences to be prosecuted in a court on shore. There is need for all four methods and provision is made for these in the Bill. We all hope that recourse to the courts will be infrequent, but safety at sea clearly requires that certain degrees of misconduct should be subject to statutory offences.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I dwell for a moment on the Clauses dealing with misconduct, as these have been subject to much discussion with both sides of the industry. Clause 27 deals with misconduct of a flagrant character which is likely to endanger the ship or the people on board, and Clauses 28 to 31 deal with less serious but potentially dangerous actions such as drunkenness on duty, disobedience to commands, persistent neglect of duty, combination with other seamen to disobey commands, neglect of duty or impeding the ship and absence without leave.
I would emphasise that in drawing up these provisions in this way, we have followed closely the recommendations of the Pearson inquiry, which considered these matters at considerable length. It felt that it was necessary to have these various provisions and the report set out the reasons for this in some detail. However, I must explain that, after discussions with the shipping industry, I have attempted to group the most flagrant offences in Clause 27.
It is only to the offences in this Clause that a penalty of imprisonment attaches. It does not apply to the offences, which are still serious but not quite so serious, in Clauses 28 to 31. In particular, the penalty of imprisonment will no longer apply to desertion or disobedience. I am sure, as was Lord Pearson and his committee, that such provisions are necessary in order to provide that safety at sea shall be protected adequately. However, these offences are those of a serious kind and the more numerous less serious matters will no doubt be dealt with in the other ways which I have mentioned.
One of these methods is the system of shipboard fines and these are dealt with in Clauses 34 to 38. The Bill follows the recommendations of the Pearson inquiry. It felt that the system of on-hoard fines must be retained primarily to deal with casual seafarers who only join for one or two voyages and that the system should be exercised with moderation and discrimination.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: What is the view of the National Union of Seamen and what sort of discussions did my right hon. Friend have with it on this point?

Mr. Mason: The N.U.S. was involved throughout the Pearson inquiry, so it was conversant with how the Pearson Report developed. It had talks with some of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Board of Trade before I went there and I myself have met representatives of the union, including the general secretary. No doubt my hon. Friend has noted with pleasure that, as compared with the July Bill, we have lessened the harshness of the disciplinary provisions.
The present arrangements for on-board fines, are, therefore, retained, subject, however, to safeguards in the manner of operation. But there is also provision for the powers of the master to be transferred wholly or partly to ships' disciplinary committees and for experiments in such committees to be conducted. The National Maritime Board is considering such arrangements and I wish to encourage it by these provisions.
Another important part of the Bill deals with civil liability for damages for breach of contract for absence without leave. The Pearson Report recommended that it should be possible to offset such damages against wages and this will be done by authorising deductions from wages in regulations under Clause 10. But the report also recommended that the liability should be limited to £100 or £10 where there were no special damages and provision is, therefore, made for such limitation.
I apologise for dealing at such length with matters of discipline and civil liability, but I felt that while such Clauses are only a minority of those in the Bill, nevertheless they might be of special interest to the House. The disciplinary provisions are much less harsh than in any previous Acts and have been made more acceptable to the seamen by amending the July Bill.
Other Clauses to which I should draw the attention of hon. Members include Clause 42. This removes the exclusion of seamen from the protection of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875. It also provides a method by which they may withdraw their labour from a ship in appropriate circumstances. These are two other advances which will be welcomed in the industry.
Another group of Clauses, 43 to 60, deal with manning and certification, in

quiries into fitness or conduct and investigations into shipping casualties. Here, our approach has been to provide as much flexibility as possible, because there are likely to be substantial developments in the future in the manning of ships and in the types of qualification needed to meet those changes in manning and in the techniques of operation. We therefore need flexibility, but we must have some control because safety of life at sea can be directly affected.
Then there are sections dealing with arrangements for the relief and maintenance of seamen left behind abroad, for matters relating to deceased seamen and for various other subjects such as documentation. We have tried broadly to maintain existing arrangements while removing some of their complications. The liability for financial arrangements for seamen left behind abroad has been placed on the shipowner instead of on the Government. This is an expense which I think that the industry and not the taxpayer should bear in future.
I should like now to turn again to fishermen. Provision is made in Clause 90 and Schedule 1 for the application of most of the provisions of the Bill to fishing vessels. There are some differences between the operations and conditions of service of fishing vessels and merchant ships, and these have been taken into account. Thus, most of the provisions will apply to fishing vessels, but the regulations to be made for fishing vessels will be different from those of merchant ships. There will, therefore, have to be separate consultation about them.
I must refer especially to the question of discipline for fishermen. Here we have thought it right to make some difference in the provisions to take account of differences in the way the two industries operate and the fact that the Pearson Report related to the merchant service and not to the fishing fleets.
On discipline, Clause 27, about the most serious offences, and Clause 28, about drunkenness on duty, will apply to fishermen as well as to seamen. The other disciplinary Clauses will not apply to fishermen, but there is provision in Schedule 1 for regulations to be made by affirmative Resolution procedure in order


to apply to fishermen disciplinary requirements of this kind should that prove necessary.
However, I also recognise, and I must emphasise, that in the fishing industry there is at present in operation a system of port disciplinary committees, and that fishing vessels, unlike merchant ships, tend to operate from one particular port. We shall, therefore, be able to take into account the way in which these committees are operating in framing any regulations about discipline for fishermen.
The provisions in the Bill represent a considerable modernisation of the statutory requirements for service at sea for officers and men of the Merchant Navy and fishing fleets. In putting them forward, I am acutely conscious of the great importance of both the British shipping and fishing industries to our national life.
We now have more British merchant tonnage than ever before, and as we all know there has recently been substantial modernisation of the shipping industry. It is an industry which is making a very large contribution to our invisible earnings, and these, in turn, are crucial to our overall balance of payments. My desire is to foster the efficiency of that industry by providing a proper modern environment in which people can serve.
In this process we have to safeguard, in the interests of all, safety at sea and, at the same time, foster conditions which will make life at sea as attractive as possible to all who serve there. I hope, therefore, that the provisions of the Bill will enable the shipping industry and the officers and men who serve therein to make an even more valuable contribution.
I believe, also, that the provisions will be of great benefit to the fishing industry and there, also, will provide a substantial modernisation of conditions of their service at sea. Some of the recommendations of the Holland-Martin Committee on Trawler Safety are covered in the Bill. I hope that others principally concerned with the construction and equipment of trawlers will be covered in a Bill on trawler safety and related matters which I hope to introduce later this Session.
This Bill is the first attempt to provide comprehensive legislation for seafarers for 75 years. This is a major advance for

British shipping and British seamen. It is a new charter for a new generation of seamen. The House should be proud of the Bill. After inquiry and some torment, and genuine consultations all now agree with this charter. This is a Bill that will be regarded by all in shipping as a major milestone in our Merchant Navy's history. It will be the guide line and, indeed, the strong framework in which our modern merchant fleet will work for many years to come.
I am certain, therefore, that the Bill provides the basis for modern conditions of service at sea today and an exciting progressive charter well beyond the seventies.

4,23 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The whole House will wish to thank the President of the Board of Trade for the very lucid manner in which he has put the Bill before us. He was, perhaps, inclined to gloss over his own personal contribution here, because it will be remembered that he was the Minister of State at the Board of Trade in charge of shipping between October, 1964 and January, 1967, when a very great deal of the preliminary work on the Bill was done.
It is true to say that the origins of the Bill go back, not to the 1966 strike, but to the strike in 1960, when hon. Members will remember that two seamen at Southampton were prosecuted for deserting their ships. This it was that brought to the notice of all concerned the fact that the 1894 Act was long overdue for reform and modernisation. When one bears in mind that that Act—

Mr. Heffer: I am sorry to intervene, but the origin goes back even further. It was first thought of with the 1947 strike, which was an unofficial strike that had very wide reactions.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is right, but I am sure that nothing was ever done about it after that strike, whereas I hope to show that a lot was done after 1960.
The 1894 Act was itself a consolidation of much earlier legislation going back to 1850 and beyond, to the days when all ships had sails, when voyages lasted for months, when communications


were primitive or non-existent, when conditions on board were crude and insanitary and when the maintenance of discipline was harsh and despotic, and the temptation to desert and become a pirate was almost overwhelming. In those days, relations between seamen and owners were themselves crude and harsh.
Perhaps I may quote from a speech made by Lord Stowell in the "Minerva" case in 1825. He said:
On the one side are gentlemen possessed of wealth, and intent, I mean not unfairly, upon augmenting it, conversant in business, and possessing the means of calling in the aid of practical and professional knowledge. On the other side, is a set of men generally ignorant and illiterate, notoriously and proverbially reckless and improvident, ill-provided with the means of obtaining useful information, and almost ready to sign any instrument that may be proposed to them; and on all accounts requiring protection, even against themselves. Everybody must see where the advantage must lie between parties standing upon such unequal ground, and accordingly these special engagements, so introduced into the mariners' contract lean one way, to the disadvantage of the mariners, and to the advantage of their employers, by increasing the duties of the former and diminishing the obligations of the latter.
It was in those circumstances that Parliament intervened, and passed a series of Acts, designed to protect seamen, providing for the supervision of engagement and paying-off, fixing standards of food and accommodation, providing rights to complain to justices of the peace or to consular offices, and so on. These Acts also provided a very severe code of discipline with severe penalties for desertion and many other offences. There is now a great mass of legislation aimed at securing safety at sea, covering the certification of officers, standards of manning, lifeboats, and the rest.
Since 1894 this legislation has been added to frequently, and there are now more than 50 Acts on the Statute Book amending or adding to the 1894 Act; and also a great number of regulations. But it is true to say that the main structure, certainly as regards Part II of this Bill, and other parts, has remained substantially unchanged. Perhaps, in retrospect, it is astonishing that the industry should have put up with this legislation for as long as it has. Perhaps, it reflects the innate conservatism—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and I spell it with a small "c"

because this is not a party political occasion—among those who serve in ships and serve the sea.
Conditions have changed beyond all recognition since 1894. Ships themselves are much larger, and have increasingly sophisticated engines and equipment on board. Communications, first by telegraph and then by radio, have enabled ships to maintain contact with the shore and with their home ports at all times. Seamen have participated fully in the growth of trade unions which are able to look after their interests and negotiate with their employers vastly more satisfactorily than Acts of Parliament can ever hope to provide for. Most important of all, there has been a great, and for long unrecognised, change in the relationships that must exist, and do exist, between officers and ratings, between masters and their crews, between employees and employers in the industry. Yet the 1894 Act has remained the principal instrument regulating conduct and relationships to this day.
The President of the Board of Trade suggested that perhaps we should be proud. I am not sure. It was a matter of pride for our 19th century predecessors that they saw the evils which existed and legislated to put them right and took a leading part in the progress for reform of life at sea. But we are now, rather belatedly, bringing the law into line with reforms which the industry has in recent years initiated and carried through. It is right that this point should be made: it was not until 1960 that the official world woke up to the need for amending the legislation.
The first efforts were made in the National Maritime Board, but within a year or two it became apparent that the gulf between the parties on the Board was so wide that no progress could be made. In 1962, the Ministry of Transport, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), began to take a hand. I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade, and the House, would wish to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's Parliamentary Secretary, Vice-Admiral Jock Hughes Hallett, who set in train a review of the 1894 Act. He chaired a Committee in the Ministry which produced proposals which, in 1963, were put to the National Maritime Board, which was asked to nominate delegates for consultation. The


first meeting was held on 17th October, 1963. A month or two later, the then Member for Southampton, Test, Mr. Howard, asked the Minister of Transport what action he was taking. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey said:
'… I have invited representatives of British shipowners and seafarers to join my Department in a detailed examination of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts relating to seafarers in the hope that agreed proposals for revision of the Acts in this respect may be worked out. These matters are most complex and the discussions, which began in September, and which are entirely without commitment, will inevitably take some time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1963; Vol. 684, c. 15.]
My right hon. Friend has turned out to be a more accurate prophet than he knew, for it has taken six years.

Mr. Simon Mahon: While he is giving these accolades to his colleagues, would the hon. Gentleman be equally generous in remembering that even in 1960 seamen had to go to gaol to make their protests against the 1894 Act?

Mr. Jenkin: I have already made that point. By the time that I have sat down I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not feel that I have been short in generosity.
By any standards, six years is a long time, and I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been impatient to see this Bill. The President of the Board of Trade was right to claim that it is the product of long consultations and, in my view, as an agreed package, which is what it substantially is, it has been worth waiting for.
I have nothing but praise for all those who, by their long and patient consultations, have been able to achieve this package—and not only the Ministers of this Government and their predecessors, and Lord Pearson and his colleagues—I join in the tribute which the right hon. Gentleman paid—not only to the officials of the Board of Trade who have worked long and hard, but to the officials of the organisations—the unions, the masters' and the officers' associations and the British Shipping Federation. The Bill reflects great credit on all concerned.
The President of the Board of Trade referred to this Measure as the Pearson package. I am happy to adopt his

phraseology. The Official Opposition's attitude is that we warmly support the Bill. While we have a number of points which we shall raise in Committee, some of which I shall raise today, we are in substantial agreement, and our approach, like that of the President of the Board of Trade, is that this is the first time for 75 years that this House will have the opportunity of legislation in this important field and it is, therefore, right and proper that we should bend all our efforts to ensuring that we get the Bill right.
The President of the Board of Trade described the Bill as an enabling Bill, which is correct, for it provides for no fewer than 35 different sorts of regulations. Therefore, the Bill is but a bare skeleton and the flesh remains to be put upon it. The flesh will take three forms, of which the regulations, although important, are only one. There are the agreements which have been reached and which will undoubtedly be reached in the National Maritime Board. Those who have had the opportunity of studying the year book produced by the Board will know how far-reaching those agreements are.
Thirdly, there is a growing number of company agreements and company employment practices involving ships' liaison representatives, the modification of the traditional distinctions between officers and ratings, fringe benefits, pensions, and so on. All these are to be regarded as the flesh which will go on the Bill. We shall be concerned with the regulations, but it is right that we should remember at all times that behind them will be an impressive array of negotiated agreements and a growing body of progressive employment practices. It can be said that the Bill and the regulations are primarily to deal with the exceptions, whereas the normal relationships between employers and employees will rest on the agreements and employment practices.
I should like to say a few words about the regulations. These were proposed by the Pearson Committee to give greater flexibility to the law in this respect and room for experiment by ship owners in such things as manning, in order to make provision for the new developments in certification and to make the operation of discipline more flexible. But this proceeding by delegated legislation puts the


House in a little difficulty because we run the risk of debating the Clauses without the benefit of knowing what the substantive provisions will be. In some cases it will be impossible for us to have meaningful debate unless we have something before us in the way of draft regulations.
I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will feel it possible, before the Committee stage or before we reach the relevant Clauses in Committee, to let us have drafts or dummies or even headings of the sort of things that he intends to cover in the more important regulations. I have seen the Board of Trade's proposals, in outline headings, for the disciplinary offences. I should have thought that we must have at least something like that. If I were asked to specify which regulations would be most important for the Committee to have before it, I would say the regulations dealing with wages and accounts, disciplinary offences and rights of appeal, ships' disciplinary committees, manning and certification, relief and repatriation, and discharge books, and with the hours of work for fishermen and fishermen's offences. I shall return to the latter point because I am not sure that there is not an issue between us. I hope that the Minister of State, when he replies, will be able to give assurances about the availability of these draft or dummy regulations.
It would be easy in a debate like this to go into a series of Committee points. I will resist that temptation. But the fact that we do not raise a point today does not mean that we do not regard it as important—

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Hear, hear.

Mr. Jenkin: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's agreement.
Let me try to cover a few issues of principle. First, I want to consider the changes of certification and manning. The Pearson Committee said that the only reason for the existence of these provisions is safety. As the President of the Board reminded us, safety runs like a golden thread through the Bill. The trend today is for smaller and more highly qualified crews, providing for inter-

changeability and general purpose manning, which in turn predicate higher standards of training.
The industry suffers from a high rate of turnover. I have the figures produced by the Registrar-General which show that, in a single month, out of a total manpower of 97,800 in the Merchant Marine, nearly 3,000 men joined and just under 2,500 left. That is a very high rate of turnover by any standards. The Pearson Committee urged the industry to examine the reasons for it. It is significant that the wastage is very much lower in those trades which use specialised vessels, and when I say that I am thinking particularly of the tanker trade. This raises the whole question of job satisfaction, career prospects and related issues. They are all involved in the Clauses dealing with certification and manning.
Obviously we shall need to give close attention to the Clauses concerned with discipline. We welcome the shift from criminal to civil liability as the basis for dealing with many minor offences. But we do not understand why the Board of Trade has felt it right to depart, even since July, from the clear Pearson recommendations to make it an offence for a seaman improperly to leave his post or to be asleep on duty. These were both in Clause 27 of the July version of the Bill. They fall squarely within the right hon. Gentleman's definition of "flagrant and serious offences", and we are entitled to an explanation why they are not in the Bill. They seem to be crucial to safety and are not merely disciplinary offences.

Mr. McNamara: If the hon. Gentleman makes the point that they are crucial to safety, surely they are covered by Clause 27.

Mr. Jenkin: I agree that perhaps that could be the right place, though I am advised that they would be more appropriate to Clause 28 or Clause 29. However, I do not think that they are covered by Clause 27 as they stand at present.
The right hon. Gentleman has remarked that character reports in discharge books are to be dispensed with, and I welcome that. They have become rather a farce. There are only two forms of reports. A seaman can have "V.G.", meaning


"Very good", or "D.R." meaning "Decline to report". A "D.R." entry in a discharge book is a very black mark and, therefore, it is all too frequently avoided.
This is now coupled with a great reduction in the number of offences and the severity of the penalties. There could be a risk that the Bill might be interpreted as a licence to bad characters to run riot.
In this context, I welcome the statement by the General Secretary of the National Union of Seamen in his union's journal last September. Mr. Hogarth said:
The safety, welfare and the employment of our members must be protected at all times. We shall not, therefore, hesitate to support demands for drastic action against offenders where in our view such action is warranted.
I turn to the proposal to set up ships disciplinary committees. This is a new departure for the United Kingdom, though I understand that similar procedures have worked for some time in Norwegian ships. It is regarded by the National Union of Seamen as a matter of great importance, and rightly so, though there are some misgivings amongst masters. I have heard it said by one that he would not like to be the master of the first experimental ship. Nevertheless, the Pearson Committee recommended that the Bill should provide opportunities for experiments in this direction, and I am interested to learn that this is what the President has in mind at this stage.
I have seen the preliminary document agreed in the National Maritime Board for a committee which would exercise the functions of the master in determining whether an offence has been committed, leaving the decision on any penalty to the master. It would provide for a committee drawn from panels of officers and seamen in a strict rota and, therefore, with no chance of selectivity.
It is right to have these limited experiments and that they should be tried on different classes of ships. They should work well on the ordinary liner/cargo ship or tanker with a small crew. I can see greater difficulties in the giant passenger ships, such as the "Queens", with very much larger crews, simply because of the time involved in getting committees

together; yet those are the ships where the record shows a greater number of infractions.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to Clause 42 and the right to strike. Again, that is regarded as very important by the union. We are glad that it has felt it right to accept the limitations in the Clause that the ship should be in the United Kingdom, that she should be safely moored, and that 48 hours' notice should be given after the ship has been moored before labour is withdrawn. We all hope that we shall never see a repetition of the disastrous events of 1966, but I agree that this specific provision is a necessary and proper safeguard to ensure that the legitimate interests of seamen are backed by the lawful withholding of labour in extreme circumstances.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the application of the Bill to fishermen, and here we confess to some puzzlement. He recognises, as we do, that there are considerable differences between the fishing fleet and the merchant fleet and that they call for different treatment. We do not necessarily agree that the main offences provided for in the Bill for merchant seamen should be provided for by regulations for fishermen. These are serious offences carrying serious penalties, and it is not right that they should appear in regulations where, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, they cannot be amended by this House. All that can happen is that regulations are brought before the House by the right hon. Gentleman and if, after the debate, he feels that he has them wrong, he has to withdraw them and start again. In this Bill, we will be able to amend the offences Clauses as the Measure goes through its stages. The same maximum penalties will be applicable to fishermen, and this House should have the right to debate the Clauses. They should not appear as regulations. Subject to anything which may be said later, it would be our intention to seek to have disciplinary clauses for fishermen included in the Bill and not in regulations.
Furthermore, a number of offences were to have been in the Bill providing for fishermen arising specifically out of the dangers of alcohol, following the Holland-Martin Report. The Schedule in the Bill does not now even empower the President of the Board of Trade to make these regulations.
The Holland-Martin Committee recognised that, on fishing vessels, although one is dealing with only a small minority of men, drink can be a serious problem. I understand that the British Trawlers' Federation was given an undertaking by the Board of Trade that three extra offences would be included in the legislation: first, reporting for duty under the influence of drink or drugs; second, bringing intoxicating liquor on board without permission; and third, neglecting or refusing to join a ship or, indeed, leaving the ship while proceeding to sea. I have been given to understand that it is not unusual for a fisherman to arrive on board his ship drunk and for him to fall between the ship and the quay as the ship is leaving the quay, or even to jump overboard.

Mr. McNamara: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the case reported earlier this year, which it was not my intention to mention, where a ship's runner went into a public house, got a drunken fisherman to sign articles and took him aboard ship? That was all the responsibility of the owners and the captain. He went below, caused malicious damage, but no action was taken by the captain.

Mr. Jenkin: I shall come to ships' runners in a moment. There is a point arising on such cases.

Mr. James Johnson: It is a new departure to make allegations of this nature in this Chamber without evidence to support them. The Hull fish dock is in my constituency. Can the hon. Gentleman cite any statistics to show the number of men who fall in the dock in this fashion? I do not know of them.

Mr. Jenkin: Of course not. The hon. Gentleman knows that it would be unreasonable to come to the House with such statistics. I am sure that he has read paragraphs 254 and 255 of the Holland-Martin Report, in which the committee say:
We have heard a considerable amount of evidence that drink amongst crews is a major factor affecting safety.
They go on to describe what they themselves saw. I am sure that there is nothing much between us on this matter. If I have

sought to exaggerate the problem, I ask to be forgiven. But I hope hon. Members opposite will recognise that there is a problem. The Holland-Martin Report regards it as a major factor affecting safety.
It has been suggested that these offences have been omitted at the instance of one of the unions involved, but in view of the safety record of the trade unions, I find this difficult to accept. We regard the relegation to the Schedule of the main offences and the omission of others as important matters. If by any chance they remain in the Bill as regulations, then it would be right that the House should have, not merely a 90-minute debate at the end of the day when general regulations come forward, but a full day or a half-day to discuss the matter.
I come to the question of ships' runners. Why does Clause 7 of the Bill not apply to fishermen? Surely many of the evils involving runners taking bribes have happened in the fishing ports? Why has this matter been left out of the Bill when it applies to all others who arrange for crews to join ships? Surely the employers and unions are at one in deploring the practice of seamen giving bribes; Clause 7 should apply to fishermen as to the rest of the Merchant Marine.
I should like to turn to the Duncan Report on overseas representation. The President of the Board of Trade will be aware that paragraphs 17 to 20 of Chapter 9 contain sweeping recommendations about the limitation of consular duties with reference to seamen. With this, they recommend a substantial reduction in the number of those overseas posts. But an examination of the Bill shows that a dozen specific functions for consular officers still remain, such as the discharge of seamen overseas, cases in which seamen are left behind, where there are disputes about food, wages and so on. What consideration has been given to the Duncan proposals? Can we be told something about the intentions of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in regard to the number of posts? I agree that it has come into the picture rather late in the day, only in July of this year, but the House is entitled to know the Government's intentions.
Finally I raise a point of general principle which I have discussed with a


number of interests involved. It is a proposal which has not been universally applauded. I put it forward more from the point of view that it should be aired and discussed than that any firm decision should be embodied at this stage in the Bill. Indeed I myself have reached no concluded view at all.
This matter concerns the tendency to regard only four parties as being involved in legislation of this sort, namely the masters, the officers, the seamen and the owners. Is there not a fifth party concerned, namely, the public interest which is represented by the Crown? The Crown's interest—Irefer principally to the disciplinary provisions—arises firstly because the laws of England—or the laws of Scotland—ought to be observed in British ships on the high seas or in British territorial waters; and secondly, because it is a British interest when a British ship is visiting overseas to ensure that the crew should be well behaved both afloat and ashore. Yet apart from the master there is no agent of the Crown present to uphold this public interest. Does this not place on the master's shoulders some sort of obligation to uphold the laws of this country in a ship in which he is serving or at least to ensure that the breaches are investigated and reported? No specific obligation of this sort is spelt out in the Bill though perhaps it is implied.
May I explain the sort of situation I have in mind. Let us take as an example a breach of the general criminal law—where there has been fighting or an assault or, let us say, a case of sexual assault on a young seaman, which mercifully happens very rarely. If this happens on shore it can be the subject of immediate complaint to the police. But, at sea the only person to whom the victim can complain is the master.
It has been represented to me and has been confirmed—though for obvious reasons no specific case can be quoted—that complaints of this sort have been occasionally hushed up. There has been pressure on the complainant to withdraw his complaint or it has been turned aside with a view to avoiding a scandal. What then happens is that the young seaman goes ashore complains to his parents and they seek an investigation by the employers but are told, "We have no record of anything of this sort having happened

on board the ship". I make it clear that this occurs only on very rare occasions indeed. But as the Bill stands there is no specific obligation on the master to prevent this happening. I concede that the existence of a legal obligation cannot of itself guarantee that it will be observed, but it would help to minimise the risk of something of the sort happening.
Should there not be a specific duty to record in a special log the fact that an incident has been reported together with its general nature and the parties involved where their identity is known? Such an obligation would stand as an express recognition of the fact that the master as well as being the employee of the company and the captain of the ship is the only available instrument for upholding British justice in British ships on the high seas. This proposal when it was put to the representative bodies did not receive unanimous support but it is worthy of consideration and perhaps the matter will be returned to in Committee.
It must be rare for a Government to bring forward a Bill which is the product of as much consultation as this Bill. It is certainly rare for a Bill to receive such a warm welcome from Her Majesty's Opposition as I have been able to give it. Perhaps these two facts are not unconnected. We look forward to working with the Minister of State in Committee to make still better what is already a thoroughly good Bill. I very much hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will feel it right to give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: First of all I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade for deploying his arguments on this legislation with his customary clarity. However, I know that he will agree that several questions remain unanswered, and no doubt they will be dealt with in Committee. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) despite sonic of the animadversions in which he indulged, for paying a worthy tribute to the officers and men of the Merchant Navy.
In the First World War it was within my knowledge that thousands of officers


and men of the Merchant Navy lost their lives, torpedoed and went down, with vessels being lost on innumerable occasions. They had similar treatment in the Second World War. Between the wars I estimate, without going into detailed statistics, that the average losses of British ships registered in the United Kingdom of various kinds over the last 20 years amount to some 20 ships per year.
The number of casualties which occur in ships are not recorded. There is no statistical evidence, but in the opinion of the National Union of Seamen and the Navigating Officers' Association and other organisations associated with the Merchant Navy the number of casualties per year amounts to several thousands.
We are not dealing primarily with matters of safety, health and general conditions of seamen. We are dealing with belated legislation which has become a necessity. Should any hon. Member accuse me of being impatient, of being a young man in a hurry, I can only reply in extenuation that I have waited 58 years for this legislation. When I was associated with the National Union of Seamen as an assistant branch secretary on the Clyde 58 years ago, I heard a great deal from the seamen themselves, and from both deck and engine room officers, about the need for revision of the Merchant Shipping Acts.
A great deal has been said about the disciplinary clauses embodied in the Bill, but very little evidence statistically about the number of disciplinary offences that occur.
The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford referred to occasional drunkenness aboard ship, particularly among fishermen. I recall that Commodore James Bone—one of the three famous Bone brothers, a famous shipmaster and Commodore of the old Anchor Line many years ago—on one occasion when I had to offer an apology to him because many of the men who joined his ship were under the influence of drink, remarked that he could not understand how anybody would go to sea sober.
Commodore James Bone may not be regarded as an unprejudiced authority.
However, I have engaged in some research, which is not altogether customary for me, and discovered that Dr. Samuel Johnson—what greater authority could I mention?—said that no man would be a sailor who could get himself into a gaol; that being in a ship is being in a gaol with every chance of being drowned; and that a man in a gaol has more room, better food and better company.
I recall the conditions that prevailed almost at the beginning of the century when I was first associated with seamen. For example, the pay of the men. Deck-hands were sailing across the Atlantic on short voyages of three to four weeks for £3 10s. a month, the men in the stoke hole, because practically all ships were coal-burning at that time, got £4 a month, and trimmers got £3 a month. Men on long voyages—for example, from this country to the River Plate—lasting three or four months were paid 5s. or 10s. a month more. Often they were paid less, because the voyages were longer and it was assumed that they would be discharged with a considerable volume of money which they could spend to their hearts' content.
That was the situation. But what were the conditions like? I recall the fo'c's'les, the galleys and the food that was provided. The conditions were abominable.
I am not blaming the enlightened shipowners of the present day. Conditions have now improved almost beyond measure. We can hardly compare the accommodation and conditions of 50 or 60 years ago on board merchant vessels registered in the United Kingdom with conditions today. For example, the old fo'c's'les and galleys in which men were herded together have gone. Now they are provided with cubicles, and accommodation has been improved. There has been a vast improvement.
However, there are still difficulties, problems and grievances. The greatest grievance amongst seamen is that they have had to wait so long for legislation of this character. I am not going to criticise any Government. When I was in Labour Governments I considered that they might have introduced legislation of the character that is under review this afternoon. But they failed for one reason or another. Nevertheless, the demand has consistently been made not


only by men of the lower deck, but by officers who recognised the need for revision of the Merchant Shipping Acts, not only because it was desirable in the interests of safety, discipline, health and welfare aboard ship, but to attract men to the sea.
The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford was on a good point when he mentioned that men go to sea for perhaps six or 12 months and then remain ashore for a period. I think that he must have extracted that from the Pearson Report. It may have been an original idea of his own. It is not often that men among the ratings on the lower deck prefer to remain at sea for a long period. Men naturally, after a period of service at sea, want to go ashore. They may be married and have children, so they want to join their families. On long voyages they are divorced from them for long periods.
I want to direct the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade—and I hope that we may have a reply from the Minister of State—to wages. Clause 8 proposes that if men are not paid their wages immediately on discharge—and we must bear in mind that they are entitled to payment of wages in full on discharge—they shall be paid a sum of not less than £30, but may have to wait seven days before receiving their full payment.
It is remarkable that in the 1894 Act—I will read it if hon. Members wish, but I do not suppose they care to challenge it—there was a proivsion that if men were not paid in full immediately on discharge they should receive the sum of £2, but that, for every day following, if payment had not been made, they were entitled to receive an extra day's pay. So that Act was more flexible and benevolent towards the men concerning the payment of wages than is this Bill. I should like to know why.
Now I come to the question of allotments. I cannot understand why there are so many restrictions in connection with allotments. Anybody who has any association with the sea, or knows anything about seamen, is aware that when a seaman signs articles he can claim an advance. He can make an allotment. Under the 1894 Act an allotment could be made, and in the course of the voyage

a man could cancel the allotment if, for example, as a result of a communication sent to him he learned that his wife had deserted him, or had misconducted herself. No provision of that kind is contained in the Bill. Indeed, the question of allotments is herded round with all kinds of restrictions, and I am not sure why this is so.
I deal, next, with the question of discipline. My right hon. Friend seemed to assume that as a result of the consultations with the unions concerned they were satisfied with the disciplinary Clauses. But that is not so; far from it. Let me give an example of what I mean. Under Clause 28 a man who has committed, or is alleged to have committed, an offence which might include drunkenness—and I mention that specifically—can, on summary conviction, be sent to prison for two years and fined £100. Nothing of the sort is embodied in the 1894 Act, and perhaps hon. Members will allow me to read what that Act says, because it is remarkable that there should be such a vast difference between this legislation and that passed 75 years ago.
Section 220 of the 1894 Act says:
If a master, seaman, or apprentice belonging to a British ship, by wilfull breach of duty or by neglect of duty or by reason of drunkenness"—
and it will be noted that the following language is similar to that used in the Bill—
does any act tending to the immediate loss, destruction or serious damage of the ship, or tending immediately to endanger the life or limb of a person belonging to or on board the ship; or (b) refuses or omits to do any lawful act proper and requisite to be done by him for preserving the ship from immediate loss, destruction, or serious damage …
he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, but he cannot on summary conviction be sentenced to two years' imprisonment or fined £100. The total penalty provided by the Act is that he shall be liable to imprisonment for any period not exceeding 12 weeks without hard labour. I cannot understand why the disciplinary provisions of the Bill are harsher than those of that Act passed 75 years ago.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Section 680 of the 1894 Act provides for a penalty of two years imprisonment for a misdemeanour, which is what the offence was. I think that it is much the same here, but if I


am wrong I shall be delighted to be corrected.

Mr. Shinwell: I am basing myself on the 1894 Act, which was referred to by my hon. Friend, and, I think, by the hon. Gentleman. So far as I know, there was no amendment of that Act which in any way revised its disciplinary provisions. I cannot understand why we are now proposing to impose harsher discipline. What statistical evidence is there, for example over the last years, that there is greater indiscipline now on the part of seamen aboard British vessels? Unless there is evidence of that kind, I cannot for the life of me understand why it is necessary to make the disciplinary provisions harsher than they were under the 1894 Act,

Mr. Mason: I think that my right hon. Friend must be under a misunderstanding about the Bill compared with the old Act. As regards drunkenness on duty, my right hon. Friend will see that Clause 28 provides for a maximum fine of £50, but no imprisonment. Only Clause 27 relates to imprisonment. The progress that we have made means that, for seamen, there is a reduction in the number of disciplinary provisions from 15 in the old Act to 7 in the Bill. Imprisonment is down from five special provisions in the old Act to one in the Bill, that is Clause 27. As regards fishermen the disciplinary provisions are down from 12 to 5, and the imprisonment provisions are down from four to one, that is Clause 27.

Mr. Shinwell: I accept what my right hon. Friend says, but that is only a modification of what appeared in the 1894 Act. What he has read out is less harsh than what is proposed. I can only assume that the Board of Trade has discovered that acts of indiscipline on board ships are more numerous now than they were before, but I am not aware of that, and we ought to be given some information on the matter.
I come, now, to the most important issue of all. This is an enabling Bill. My right hon. Friend said so, and the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford endorsed what my right hon. Friend said. We are concerned about the regulations which are to be made after con-

sultation with the various organisations associated with seafaring men. That is all very well, but suppose no agreement is reached about the regulations to be issued on the question of discipline. If the Shipping Federation, representing the ship owners, and the National Union of Seamen, representing the seamen, discuss the question of discipline and disagree on some item, what will the Board of Trade do?
It is obvious that the N.U.S. is unhappy about this question of regulations. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend would agree to this. The union suggests that the regulations should come before Parliament, be debated, and even voted upon, but that may not be possible within our parliamentary procedures. Nevertheless, the union's view fortifies the hon. Gentleman's contention that in this matter of regulations we ought to be much more specific in the Bill about the fines to be imposed, the reasons why they should be imposed, and indeed about a variety of other matters contained in the various Clauses.
I deal, next, with why this legislation has been initiated. Had it not been for the seamen's strike last year, it is questionable whether even this Government, with the best will in the world, and benevolently disposed as they are towards the seamen of this country, would have initiated this legislation. The fact that it has been brought in demonstrates that if the industrial workers of this country want something to be done, they must begin by withdrawing their labour.
It was noticeable that that strike could, in the interests of the country, have been brought to an end much sooner than it was. Here I do not indulge in undue criticism of members of the Government or any particular member of the Government but I recall, and I hope that hon. Members will excuse me for what may appear to be egotism, that some days after the strike began I advised the Minister concerned to intervene. I was told that it was not the business of the appropriate department in the then Ministry of Labour concerned with industrial matters to intervene unless both sides agreed to ask for intervention. As a result, we had a strike lasting six or seven weeks, to the detriment of the seamen and to the disadvantage to the country through loss of


exports. As a further result, we had the Pearson inquiry, and so we have the present legislation. It was a great pity that on that occasion the Government did not act more speedily and more drastically.
When I speak of the conditions of seamen I make no criticism at all of ship owners. The United Kingdom shipping industry is competitive. We have to compete with older maritime nations such as Greece and several others, and with newer maritime nations such as the Commonwealth countries—Australia and New Zealand—as well as with Japan, West Germany and the Scandinavian countries. The remarkable fact is that the wage rates of United Kingdom seamen are amongst the lowest of any merchant seamen.
It is sometimes assumed, particularly since the last seamen's strike, that conditions are vastly improved and that our seamen are highly paid. There can be no challenging the statistics I have seen because they are provided by, among other authorities, the International Labour Office, and they leave no doubt that our seamen's wages are much lower than those paid to the seamen of a dozen, or even a score, of other maritime countries.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman making the point that our seamen's wage levels relative to those paid in Western Europe and North America are relatively much worse than wages in other occupations are to those paid in comparable occupations in Western Europe and North America?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not using that argument at all: I am putting a simple point. There is a great deal of exaggerated and extravagant talk about seamen being very well off, particularly since the last strike, and as a result of inquiries. But the fact should be placed on record that their wages are amongst the lowest paid to seamen of any maritime country.
I understand that the men are now putting in a claim for increased rates of pay, and I hope that what I have said will be borne in mind when there is any confrontation in future between the Shipping Federation, representing the employers, and the National Union of Sea-

men and other organisations representing both officers and men. I say that particularly, because, as the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford has so rightly said, we have to attract men to the sea, and we have to attract those men who will regard the sea as a career or a profession.
I hope that there will be some discussion that will lead in the future to men being allowed to take their wives with them. I understand that officers on some of the larger tankers are allowed to do this, and that the same practice is in operation in other maritime countries. I should like to see deck ratings and engine room ratings, or at least some of them, allowed to take their wives with them. This practice should not be confined to officers only.
There have been improvements in accommodation. During the First World War I was asked by the newly-created Minister of Shipping, Lord Maclay, to visit some of the shipyards—where were being built ships rather like the Liberty ships of the Second World War—to see whether the accommodation could be improved. We always called Lord Maclay "Holy Joe", because he always made Christmas presents to his seamen of copies of the New Testament. I say it with all due respect to him—he was a very fine person. I recommended cubicles accommodating four men, rather than having all the crew collected in the fo'c'sle and the galley—

Dr. M. S. Miller (Glasgow, Kelvin-grove): Would not my right hon. Friend agree that a very important accommodation point arises as ships get bigger? The bulk carriers get bigger, and as unloading facilities get quicker and better, a form of shuttle service is created which means that the men are living on board all the time. They do not get ashore, and they have no break. In those circumstances it becomes more important than ever to ensure that their accommodation and other facilities on board ship are vastly improved.

Mr. Shinwell: That is quite true. On the other hand, those associated with the shipping industry know that men very often go on a short voyage, perhaps for four or six weeks, or a couple of months, come back, a nd take their discharge. They are then out of work, and may have


to wait for weeks before getting another ship.
I should like to see men employed by a shipping company all the year round. That is not a new idea. Many years ago one of the co-managing directors of the Cunard Line was Algernon Henderson, also of the Anchor Line, a very enlightened person. It may surprise many hon. Members to know that even in those days there was such a thing as a Socialist shipping millionaire, in the person of James Allen, and Algernon Henderson was also inclined that way. He used to ask me for books on Marxism. I did not know much about the subject myself, but he asked for books like that. He was very anxious that the seamen employed by the Anchor Line and the Cunard Line should be employed all the year round.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government on introducing the Bill. I am glad to hear from hon. Members opposite that they will seek to make Amendments, and we on this side will produce some of our own in an endeavour to improve the Bill and satisfy the seamen and officers concerned. The Bill will bring a vast improvement to the conditions of seamen, but much yet remains to be done.
For 58 years, I have been associated in one way or another with the seamen of this country. They are the salt of the earth—if I may use a cliché, though a worthy cliché about them. We must do everything we possibly can for them. At the same time, we must also do everything we possibly can to develop, cherish, and nourish our shipping industry.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and to pay tribute to him for the work which he has done over so many years for the seamen and the merchant navy of this country. I do not often have the opportunity to catch the eye of the Chair. It is generally considered, since I am a P.P.S., that it is better for me, if I have anything worth saying, to let my shadow Minister or Leader say it, and, if I do not have anything worth saying, it is better to keep quiet anyhow. Therefore, I have never before had the opportunity to follow the right hon.

Gentleman in the Chamber, and the occasion this evening is one of the pleasantest one could have to do so.
What the right hon. Gentleman said about our Merchant Navy, our seamen and our fishermen is echoed in all parts of the House. We owe an enormous debt of gratitude, in two world wars and in peace time, for the work which they have done. What the right hon. Gentleman suggested as regards improving conditions at sea his proposal that more wives should be able to go to sea with their husbands, and so on, is given a warm endorsement on these benches. I can think of nothing worse for, so to speak, labour relations on board than having a few officers able to take their wives with them, but none of the crew. A good deal still needs to be done in that regard. No doubt, a good many wives will not want to go. I cannot imagine many wishing to undertake the journey on a trawler in the North Sea or to Iceland.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) said, we give the Bill a warm welcome. It is a pity that it has not so far had more publicity in the fishing ports. I was distressed to hear this morning that 80 copies which had been ordered by the British Trawlers' Federation had not yet been delivered. Our constituents in the ports should by now have been in a position to put views to us on the Bill. If they have not been able to obtain copies, this can be a great disadvantage to both this debate and the debates in Committee. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will look into the question of delay in that respect. It shows a certain degree of inefficiency.
I shall confine myself to the fishing industry. In this respect, the Bill is concerned with safety, the safety of men, not the safety of equipment, which will be dealt with, as the right hon. Gentleman said, in another Measure to be introduced later this Session. In considering discipline, we should address our minds, first, to the question of safety, and then with an understanding that we are dealing in the context of discipline with only a small minority. The vast majority of fishermen do not need disciplinary boards. They stick to the rules of good seamanship and good conduct; they have a proper regard for one another's safety. But there are always, particularly in the


fishing ports, a few bad men, men who, in the past, when they have got into trouble in one port, have promptly moved on to another. They have become known as "cowboys"—not "midnight cowboys" but just bad cowboys.
No one dealing with the subject of safety can underestimate its importance. All those who have had to visit the homes of people bereaved as a result of a loss at sea know what a difficult experience it is and will wish to do everything possible to get safety right.
My hon. Friend found himself in a little trouble when he spoke about drinking, the effect which it can have, and the need for discipline in this respect. It is usual, before a ship sails, for the men to have a few drinks before going on board, and I see nothing wrong in that. On the occasion when I spent some time on a trawler, I was taken into the public house before going aboard. I did not want anything to drink at that stage at all, but I was made to have a drink—a Guinness—by the skipper, and I had lost that Guinness before the boat had passed the harbour entrance.
There are, however, some men who will not only take on a "skinful" before going on board but will in that state try to take quite a bit on board with them. They then become a nuisance to the ship, they become a danger to its safety, and quite often they can become a danger to themselves as well. They will try to jump off the ship when it is going through the lock gates. They have been known, on occasion, to believe that, by diving off the ship, they will be able to avoid going to sea, and there have been one or two cases of fishermen drowning as a result.
When a fisherman jumps a ship like that at the early stage, it is possible, of course, for the ship to turn back, but in the circumstances it is most unlikely that it will. The crew do not want it to turn back, and neither does the skipper. They want to go after the fish out at sea, so they put to sea a man short, and that can be the start of some of the trouble.
I am, therefore, disappointed that certain categories of offence which one was given to understand would figure in the Bill, that is, those relating to reporting for duty under the influence of drink, taking intoxicating liquor on board, neglecting or refusing to join, or

leaving the ship while proceeding or about to proceed to sea, have now been dropped. It is my understanding that these additional categories of offence which were considered necessary by the Government have been dropped because of pressure from the Transport and General Workers' Union. I say that in the presence of hon. Members opposite, and I hope that we shall hear that my understanding is wrong. If, however, it is correct, I can only say that the Transport and General Workers' Union cannot have been carrying out its primary duty to its members, which is to do everything it can to improve safety. I consider that those provisions should appear in the Bill, and that there should be included in Clause 28 also a provision dealing with a seaman improperly leaving his post cm being asleep.
I turn to the port disciplinary committees. I would always regard the operation of the law to be an action of last resort. We shall have failed to get the right type of men and management into the industry if many more cases come before the courts of fishermen or seamen jumping their ship, failing to turn up, or being drunk. We should be able to prevent this if the port disciplinary committees do their job properly. They have an opportunity to register fishermen, information can be exchanged between ports, and they can suspend a fisherman if they consider that he is not up to standard. The port disciplinary committee in Lowestoft has got off to an excellent start, and the branch secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union has been absolutely first-class in the way in which he has co-operated. I pay him that tribute. If the disciplinary committees work properly, the other measures in the Bill will not have to be used.
I end by referring to a matter which was drawn to my attention some months ago as a result of the loss of the Long-hope lifeboat men. The motor vessel "Irene" went aground off the North-East Coast of Scotland. Only about one and a half hours before she went aground she radioed her position as being off the Norwegian coast—a fault in navigation of some magnitude. An inquiry has been going on—it was not a British ship—and the Board of Trade knows that I have been taking some interest in it. As a result I have had some correspondence with a


navigator who is, quite rightly, concerned with proper navigation by ships and who feels that the standards are not high enough. If there are people at sea who are incapable of navigating or of running a modern ship properly, other people's lives are put at risk. This is what happened with the lifeboat which went out to the "Irene".
It has been drawn to my attention that once a person has a master's certificate he has it once and for all. It appears that he need not have periodic checks or tests to see whether he is fit, whether his health is good enough, or whether he has been trained in using modern equipment. A master may be at sea for a few years, then decide to have a few years on the shore and then he goes back to sea. He does not have to take a fresh examination or pass a fresh test. Too much confidence is placed in the original test.
This matter should be reviewed. I am surprised that this point has not arisen before. I understand that there is no control over bad health, bad eyesight, alcoholism and a good many other things. We should seriously consider a short-term licensing system which would enable a check to be made.
The right hon. Member for Easington spoke about people going to sea with a bit of alcohol in them. That may have been all right in the days when they had to clamber up the rigging and when steam engines were not very delicate instruments. But nowadays, with modern ships and enormously intricate equipment, enormous damage can be caused if they go aground, as happened with the "Torrey Canyon". It is important that only people with the highest qualifications should man ships. That is why I strongly support all that the right hon. Gentleman said about accommodation and conditions for seamen.
We can give the Bill a warm welcome. We hope that it will provide a new charter for the seamen and fishermen of this country and that they will prosper and give this country the service which they have given it in the past.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I most heartily congratulate my right hon. Friend

the President of the Board of Trade on introducing the Bill. I am grateful to the Government for proposing to amend legislation which for too long has adversely affected the merchant seamen and the maritime fleets of this country.
The name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has been a byword in my home, which has a maritime connection of many, many years, during my father's time and since. I am sure that he must be overjoyed that he has been able, in his lifetime, to accomplish so much on behalf of the Merchant Navy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We in the Shipping and Shipbuilding Committee serve him loyally, and I hope that he will be able to guide us in our deliberations for a long time to come.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) spoke about drunkenness on board ship. Perhaps I can be a little lighthearted for a moment. I remember, when I was a boy, seeing a ship signing on. A drunken sailor came up the gangway. There was no doubt about this trimmer: he was well and truly trimmed. We had a very competent but ugly second engineer—the ugliest second engineer in the world. He said to this fellow, "You are drunk." The trimmer looked at his ugly face and said, "Yes, but I shall look better than you do in the morning."
I come from the port of Liverpool. I hope that I shall not be the last Member representing a Liverpool constituency to speak. It is only right that we should pay testimony to the people of the maritime service who have so often sailed out of Liverpool for the benefit of this country. I should like to refer—and we have been allowed some latitude in the debate—to another person in the last war to whom the merchantmen of Merseyside are more grateful than anyone else. During the war he guided many merchantmen in and out of Liverpool, and he died a very early death. I refer to Captain Johnnie Walker, R.N., whom we knew so intimately in my town of Bootle. The number of U-boats which he sank in the war is a matter of history and interest. However, it is only fitting that, as he guided so many of our merchant ships safely in the war, his name should be on record in our debate on this Bill. He and his men did much for the country in the war.
It has been said that young men tend to do one trip and leave the sea. I can confirm that it is not unusual, so bad have been the conditions at sea in many cases. There is a well known saying in Liverpool and throughout the Merchant Navy describing a man as "having swallowed the anchor". It is to be hoped that it will not occur in the future to the extent that it has in the past.
I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend refer to the Allan Line. My father sailed as a fireman and trimmer in the "Virginian", one of its ships. Before him, my grandfather served with the Guion line, which was the forerunner of the Allan line. Despite the conditions at sea, my father always maintained that the best employer at sea was the Allan Company. When speaking of the past, when ship owners were so maligned and people were as poor as mine were, it is noteworthy that men such as my father could find the charity to recognise the endeavours of that company. I have documents in my possession proving that it founded a concern called the Allan Line Mutual Benefit Society. My father was one of the last to benefit from it, and he died at the age of 74. I am glad to put that on record, because I may have other comments to make later on which may not be so pleasant to hear.
I claim the right to be able to talk about strikes. In the unofficial strike of 1969 with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) who was not then a Member of this House, I saw the need for a quick and complete change in the legislation affecting shipping. We spent every day for eight or nine weeks trying to end the strike. It was a very difficult one, and we could see what was bound to happen. We talk about patience, and 1894 is a long time ago. Our seamen have been extremely patient in resorting to strike action so rarely. Theirs must be one of the most remarkable industrial records in history. Since the start of the National Union of Seamen, I believe that there has been only one official strike.
Some hon. Gentlemen opposite are given to referring in an off-hand way to people who go on strike "so easily". Here is a service which in all its long years has had hardly any official strikes. We should put on record our appreciation of that, because the industry is vital

our economy. When hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about the "Mafia" and the "Olympian disregard" of the country's economy, let them remember the reason why people commit the acts that they do.
Men do not go to sea for the love of God or for love of their employer. They go because they have to. I can speak about this with some insight, because I know why members of my family went to sea and why they were disciplined. But there were not only bad conditions at sea. They often came back to deplorable conditions at home, and those members of the family left behind had to live with those conditions. The disciplines of poverty and necessity made the British maritime service what it is and made men put up with such conditions at sea. Ship owners are still rich. The poor are still poor. But the country is rich.
I have in my possession the discharge certificate of one sailor. It has been said quite rightly that a man should remain with one company, but why does someone with the experience of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington say that that should be so. This certificate of discharge shows that the sailor concerned, at the age of 13, was serving off the coast of Cuba in one of the Larrinaga boats. How could anyone judge the character of a 13-year old sailor? Against the word "ability", there appears the entry "Very good". Against "General Conduct", again the entry is "Very good". That boat sailed out of Liverpool before the turn of the century.
What happened to that 13-year-old boy? Who was he? He sailed with many companies during the Boer War and two world wars and spent 50 years at sea. The shipowners of those days did not give him a red cent in compensation. That is the sort of situation which has made us the people we are. One company should have the responsibility. It has been too easy for ship owners to take advantage of youth and then disregard it. That is still the position today. A man can serve two years here and three years there, but no one has full responsibility for him.
I asked just now who was that 13-year old boy. He was my wife's father. He was a dignified sailor, if ever I saw one. He never raised his voice in criticism


of anyone. He raised his family and plied his honourable trade till the day he died.
If I have done nothing else today, I have placed on record his contribution and that of hundreds of thousands of other British sailors who served their country in peace and war and got very little compensation for it.
Without extending the situation much further, I want again to put on record something I touched on earlier. We talk about the contributions which Governments have made and why they did not do what they should have done. I remember that during the 1960 strike I contacted the then Minister of Labour. I believe that he is in another place and is now known as Lord Blakenham. He was then Mr. John Hare—a Minister of Labour in those days. On 23rd August, 1960, I had reason to send him this telegram:
I request your urgent intervention on behalf of Mr. Patrick Neary who has now been imprisoned for activities in British ports during the unofficial seamen's strike. I regard the sentencing of this man as unjust and contrary to the best traditions of British democracy. Further, I claim that the law under which this man has been punished is being wrongly used and apart from this my firm belief is that the 1894 Act should have been amended a long time ago.
That was part of the telegram that I sent to the Minister at the time. I received an undertaking that amending legislation would be introduced at the earliest opportunity. It has taken a long time. It is a big job, and I do not want to be churlish about it. But I am only one of a legion of people who have been claiming that this legislation should be amended on behalf of sailors.
As late as 1966 there was on the Order Paper a Motion
recognising the tremendous contribution made by the Merchant Navy to the history, prosperity and continued economic growth of our country, requests most strongly that all concerned in the ownership, control and administration of this service, make new and immediate endeavours to avoid disturbance of this maritime service by strike action.
It went on to reaffirm:
that the first call on any industry is the dignity, wages, hours and conditions of those employed in the industry, and therefore urges a reappraisal and full examination of such fundamental factors in so far as they apply to the Merchant Navy in 1966, and in the

light of modern conditions in industry generally, in order that industrial peace be maintained in the service, and full social justice accorded to those employed therein.
In one sense I apologise for reading that. On the other hand, it would be unfitting if I did not refer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), who is sick at the moment, and who has done so much in her lifetime for seamen. She led the six signatories supporting that Motion.
Clauses 35 to 38 are the disciplinary Clauses. They are the nub of the Bill. The Minister has been very co-operative in discussing matters with those who are interested in the Bill, and he knows that these Clauses can create an explosive situation if they do not satisfy the Merchant Navy. We are concerned about safety in ships, and the safety of all people at sea. I therefore ask that these matters be further discussed in Committee, especially from the point of view of disciplinary committees.
In the debate today there has been some talk about experimentation with disciplinary committees. I do not agree with this. We have waited for too long for this advance in dealing with discipline. I want the Minister to consider applying this provision to all ships, and making the obvious recommendations and exceptions. Rather than that these provisions should apply, perhaps, to only 10 ships here and there, they ought to be made to apply to all ships. Having made that provision, we could go on to make exceptions. It has been suggested that these committees should consist of two ratings, two officers and the master. That might be a good thing. It is a matter for discussion.
But I want to make an appeal for many of those who have gone out of my port, and no doubt many other ports in many parts of the world, who are poor people, who have little education and, although they have been jolly good sailors, have not had the opportunity of becoming articulate. It took the working classes a long time to become articulate. It took us a lifetime to learn to express ourselves, and even today many men find grave difficulty when faced with any kind of authority. We have all been placed in positions of authority in which we have had people coming before us and have felt sorry for them because they have not been able to express themselves properly.


It is therefore important that the best men in the ship should represent the unfortunate persons who are under discipline at any moment. I asked my right hon. Friend to give this matter some consideration and I was glad of his assurance that he had thought about it and had it in mind.
I am not satisfied that justice is being done in relation to the fines imposed on seamen and owners respectively. A poor person who is fined £10 may find it very difficult. There is a tremendous difference between the value of £10 to him and the value of £100 to a master or an owner. We go up to £200 in Clause 27, which is an almost astronomical figure for many of the people that I am talking about. We should keep a proper balance. Why should there be an imbalance between wealthy people on the one hand and poor people on the other. We should take into account whether a man is poor or rich, and judge him accordingly. A decent moral Government would impose punishment which is related to the crime and the wealth and position of the man who commits it.
Under Clause 39 an owner should be made to produce evidence of all that he has had to do if he is in any difficulty about the payment of wages over a period of 21 days he should have to produce the evidence to show that he cannot pay the wages at a certain time. I shall not try to reiterate what my right hon. Friend has said about that business.
On the question of allotments, I reaffirm what my right hon. Friend has said. Why should a sailor be in any different situation from anybody else? More things happen to sailors at sea than happen to most other people. Therefore a sailor should be in the same position as anybody else in respect of the allocation of money. He has an obligation to his wife and children. From my knowledge of sailors I can say that they are most assiduous in carrying out those obligations. We should ensure that the sailor is given the right to allocate money in the manner in which he wishes to do so.
On Clause 8, there is now provision for a £30 payment limit on completion of a voyage. That provision must be examined closely in Committee. It might cause a serious upset among sailors at

sea. The figure may need to be increased substantially.
I want to see the Bill provide compensation in bringing to future generations a greater degree of that which others did not have. If there is one industry that deserves to be treated in this way because of the hardship that its members have had to put up with in the old days it is merchant shipping. I have been full of bitterness on many occasions in respect of happenings in the industry. It may be that I have not sounded bitter, but I do not know anybody who has expressed more bitterness, on occasion, about the conditions in which many of my people have had to live.
I hope that the Bill removes all bitterness, because the only thing that springs from hatred and bitterness is more hatred and bitterness. We must look to the future, almost to the time when ships put to sea unmanned. We must ensure that in the interim period the right calibre of man is taken into the service. I want the Bill to bring about a greater interchangeability of codes of welfare and safety on an international basis. I hope that it will do something to bring about the greater uniformity of ships which must come about with the worldwide development of containerisation.
Above all, I want the Bill to contribute to giving greater dignity to seamen. To working people "dignity" is the finest word in the English language. It applies especially to people who go to sea in ships leaving behind them wives who must look after the home and bring up children without their husbands' help. I know of many cases where the mother has had to be wife, mother and father. We must bring dignity to bear upon sailors' home conditions and apply a higher degree of welfare services so that the wives and children of sailors will be maintained on a basis of equal dignity with the families of men who live at home.
The Bill is a fulfilment of a pledge given long ago. I am glad that it has at long last been produced. I hope that the operation of the Bill will help to establish standards of safety and justice in seafaring throughout the world and help to maintain the traditions of this great service on true British maritime standards.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Many hon. Members wish to speak. This will be possible only if hon. Members will speak a little more briefly than hitherto.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) spoke with emotion and from a connection with the sea. Many hon. Members have some connection with the sea. I have a connection with the Royal Navy and a family connection with the Merchant Navy. It was a pity that the hon. Gentleman attacked owners. The future of the industry depends to a large extent on co-operation between owners and the National Union of Seamen.
The whole House will agree with the hon. Gentleman as to the debt that Britain owes to the Merchant Navy in war and in peace. We know well the great sacrifices of the Merchant Navy in war. In peace its contribution to our island economy is one of no less importance, particularly at a time like the present when the shipping scene is altering greatly with the advent of bulk carriers and container ships. Never has it been more necessary for Britain to adapt herself to the new conditions. We have often been inventors, but sometimes there has been a failure to be sufficiently adaptable to new methods. It could be said that Norwegian owners adapted themselves much more quickly to the application of oil tankers than British owners did. The fault lies partly with the owners and partly with the Treasury.
This is still a very important national industry. It is sad that other merchant navies now exceed ours in size. Liberia and Japan have larger merchant fleets than we have. However, we still have a fleet of 21½ million tons and we still have 13 per cent. of the world's shipping, although that is a much smaller proportion than used to be the case. Our merchant ships are manned by no fewer than 34,700 officers, 54,300 seamen, and 31,400 Asians who are domiciled outside the United Kingdom. Although little may be said about the latter category, we must always remember their great work and the sacrifices that they, too,

must make in time of war. I am happy that there is a trend of increased numbers of personnel, although the latest return shows that the number decreased by seven.
It is not easy to make a Second Reading speech on this complicated Bill. Despite its lengthy gestation period we are presented with no fewer than 96 Clauses, the bulk of which merely empower the Minister to make regulations. If this whole subject is to be debated sensibly in Committee, the Ministers should be more forthcoming. Their thoughts on a number of the regulations are known to outside bodies, and before the commencement of the Committee stage Parliament should be taken into the Ministers' confidence.
I congratulate the Government on including Clause 94, which deals specifically with consultation. This will give both sides of the industry much more confidence in the regulations. However, we want to know what is in the Government's mind. Another factor is that, before the regulations are drafted, the recommendations of the Rochdale Committee may be known, which may alter the Government's thinking on some matters. It would be a pity if regulations were made and had to be changed shortly afterwards because of the proposals of the Rochdale Committee.
One thing which stands out a mile in connection with this industry is the great turnover, not in officers, not in Asians, but in United Kingdom seamen. No fewer than 18,000 left in the last 18 months, there were 8,200 newcomers, and 6,500 re-joined. This trend is common to a number of industries and to the Services. It is becoming harder to persuade people to stay on in a job.
I am glad that the Pearson Report emphasises that what is needed is more of a career and that no effort should be spared to provide a greater continuity of career. Companies continuing to employ men might be one solution. Perhaps a tax solution could be arranged. It is in the industry's interests and in the nation's interests that men should be encouraged to stay in the industry much longer than they do at present.
Despite all the regulations which will be made under the Bill, there are a number of matters which must be decided outside the Bill, and they are some of


the most important factors which were discussed by the Pearson Report.
The first is interchangeability or general purpose crews, which, with the development of new types of ship is more important than ever before. Experiments have already been carried out, but I hope that everything possible will be done in the regulations to facilitate co-operation between the companies and the National Union of Seamen in adopting one of the two possibilities.
A second bone of contention is the degree of manning by Asians. It is understandable that the National Union of Seamen should be jealous to see that this is not extended. Its attitude so far has been reasonable. But shipping is a competitive industry, particularly in the cross trades, and it is essential that it should be thoroughly efficient and keep down its costs. There are advantages in the overseas recruitment of Asians. It may help to check flags of convenience, but it involves an outflow of currency from an industry with enormous foreign currency earnings, which we must safeguard by proper regulations.
It is difficult to argue about the legal language involved in disciplinary offences until the Bill is in Committee and we can discuss whether Clause 28 is better than the old Section 27, and whether the terms of the new Clause 27 go wider than the old rules, as has been suggested. Although the disciplinary committees are to be on an experimental basis, we need to know exactly how they are to be composed. My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) made some suggestions but the Government have not said what is in their mind or how far they intend to go. Paragraph 296 of the Pearson Report says that jurisdiction should for the time being remain vested in the master. It was suggested by the hon. Member for Bootle that these committees should be set up wholesale, whereas other hon. Members have recommended that they should be tried in just a few ships.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I said not that they should be set up on every ship but that it should be the general practice and that there should be exceptions on some ships which I am sure we can all agree upon.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's views, but in these days when passengers travel increasingly by air the conditions in ships must be thoroughly up to date. For many years to come the Merchant Navy will be of the greatest importance to this country, and we can no more afford to lag behind in the conditions of service than we can in availing ourselves of the most modern techniques. We are anxiously awaiting the Rochdale Report, which will take a more general view of British shipping. Meanwhile, I hope, when the Bill is in committee, that the Government will tell us what they have in mind for the regulations.
The Pearson Report wanted flexibility, and this is necessary. It is astonishing that the 1894 Act has lasted as long as it has. Although this must be decided primarily between the two sides of industry, Parliament should know what are the proposals.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. John Homer: We have been enjoined to keep our speeches short, and I shall seek to keep to that injunction. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has just left the Chamber. When I went to sea as a young man, many years ago, his name was a topic of conversation in the fo'c's'le, and so was the 1894 Act which we are replacing. I never thought then that I should have the great honour to sit on these benches behind my right hon. Friend and be able to take part in a debate on this subject.
The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) spoke of the innate conservatism of this industry, and he was kind enough to say that he spelt conservatism with a small "c" We should not be surprised at the innate conservatism of those who earn their living on the sea. This is the tradition of the industry. These are traditions which have for many years served that industry well in the buffetings of peace and war.
Anyone who associated with the industry today must be struck by the readiness of owners, masters, officers and seamen, through their union, to look at things afresh. As the hon. Gentleman said, the


industry is obliged to think afresh. The investment of capital in new container ships is so vast that single companies cannot afford it, and consortia are being established. Indeed, so expensive are these new ships that even single merchant navies sometimes cannot afford the investment and international consortia have to be established to cope with these new monsters which will soon replace the traditional cargo liners with which we have been acquainted for so long in the oceans of the world. There is now a blurring of the edges, which means that in the next decade we shall see a substantial transformation of one of the most traditionally run industries of this country.
I welcome the Bill. It may be belated, but, to use a nautical phrase, it is just about in time for the Board of Trade to take a pierhead jump and catch the boat.
The changes that we are witnessing are likely to increase in tempo and scale, and they must mean that fewer officers and men will earn their living by going to sea, but I think there are great opportunities for making this a profession. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have emphasised the need to try to remove the casualness of employment at sea. They have touched on a fundamental aspect of modern development. This will be difficult, however much one may improve conditions aboard ship. Going to sea will still mean hardship and loneliness; not everyone can take his wife with him. It will mean for many a young man the feeling of losing opportunities which he might find elsewhere.
I therefore welcome most warmly all those suggestions which have emerged in the debate that we should begin to look at this industry with the opportunity the Bill presents to us. My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington was quite right in saying that the Bill finally emerged from the turmoil and unhappiness of the seamen's strike. We now have an opportunity to look at the industry in the broadest sense. I believe we should find the Merchant Navy Officers Association and the National Union of Seamen helpful in this regard. Although Pearson said that sometimes he thought the members of those associations more conservative than the organisations themselves, I think

We are likely to find a great response in the industry to the debates on the Bill.
So much must be tackled in Committee that it would be invidious for me to introduce more than two or three points for discussion now. I am exceedingly disappointed that the Bill makes no provision for safety. This may appear nonsense, because the Front Bench speakers have said that the essence of the Bill is safety. It is regrettable that there is no provision in it to enable the President of the Board of Trade to introduce regulations dealing with safety aboard ship. This is especially regrettable because next year the International Labour Office will have a convention on safety at sea before it.
It is worth while drawing attention to what is dealt with in that international convention. It includes:
a further study of accidents in ships, and of means of preventing them…investigation and reports of accidents, research into prevalent hazards indicated by statistics, provision of accident prevention regulations, training programmes and publicity, international cooperation both in attaining uniformity of occupational safety standards and in promoting safe working standards.
Pearson had something to say about loss of life and the extraordinary number of accidents which happen aboard ship. I found the figures he gave disappointing. I thought there had been some improvement. One talks about safety at sea and thinks of collision avoidance regulations and things of that kind, but I am thinking about the loss of life and accidents which take place aboard ship.
The Pearson Committee said:
by any standard it is now recognised by the industry that the incidence of both fatal and other accidents is much too high and must be reduced…. We believe that consideration should also be given to a requirement to report all accidents, to the provision of arrangements for inspection and to the appointment of safety officers and safety committees on board ships. Consideration might also be given to the question of whether legal enforcement is desirable.
It is to be regretted that the Bill is silent on that most important aspect of the Pearson Report.
We have heard a great deal this afternoon about discipline. I am with those who take the view that the introduction of what, after all, is a quite revolutionary conception in the maintenance of discipline at sea by the establishment of


disciplinary committees should in the first instance be by way of control and substantial experimentation. The point of view which has been expressed that the industry at the moment is capable of having the shock of disciplinary committees aboard ships, subject to certain exceptions, paints too rosy a picture of the problems which face those who have to maintain discipline in ships at sea.
This is not like working in a factory. If a man reports late too many times at a factory he may get his cards. If he is away from duty too many times—and a man at sea may be 5,000 miles from home—the other men have to "carry" him. Everyone knows this, including the crew. Therefore the crew ought to be brought into this matter. The House should look at the experience the industry has had of liaison representatives. Owners, officers and masters were scared about liaison representatives. They were horrified that they might be regarded as shop stewards, so the name was changed. There were controlled experiments and agreed experiments. Now I am delighted to know that owners and masters are asking that liaison representatives should be appointed in ships. If this is done in a reasonable fashion, the provisions in the Bill about disciplinary committees will ensure that there is a similar experience.
The provisions dealing with discipline are defective, however. I cannot understand—I hope that the Minister of State in reply to the debate will explain more adequately than has so far been explained —the relationship between the Merchant Navy Establishment procedure of discipline and the on-board imposition of fines. It was suggested that we do not know about the incidence of indiscipline aboard ship. The Pearson Committee dealt with the very important aspect of control of discipline through the committees of the Establishment. It said that between August, 1965, and July, 1966, 2,400 cases were dealt with; there was a penalty in 1,370 cases, in 700 cases a final warning was given, and in 318 cases there was a discharge.
I hope that the Government will welcome an expansion of the disciplinary procedure of the Establishment. In this procedure, the seamens' union and the employing agencies are all involved, and where the seaman against whom a report has been made is satisfied that he should

have the benefit not merely of representation by an accused's friend, as has been suggested, he has the representation by his trade union official. I think the Bill is defective because it is silent on the Establishment procedure. That procedure remains non-statutory, yet under the Bill we are to establish a new fabric of statutory penalties and quasi-judicial tribunals alongside those representing over 50 per cent. of those involved in the industry and growing and most useful work by the disciplinary committees.
I wish to raise a point on behalf of the officers. They are at a disadvantake in respect of both the disciplinary procedure and the Establishment procedure. If officers are reported by the master, a report can go to the owners and a report can go to the Establishment. So far as I can see, those reports remain confidential. A man has the right to know what charge he has to answer. He has the right to be represented. If an officer is reported, as far as I can make out he has no right to know what is in the master's report or to give his personal observations on the report. In this respect, the officers of the Merchant Navy are at a grave disadvantage. I hope that if in Committee we consider the question of the Establishment we shall also be able to consider the special position of the officers.
For those of us who had a long association with the British merchant service, this is a very happy day. I am happy to have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, in order to congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the Chair has appealed for brief speeches.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. John Hay: We have heard in the debate a number of reminiscences. As the Bill has taken so many years to see the light of day, it is not surprising that many Members with long experience of the industry who have been should refer to their experience. I will not stand aside from this general process. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) said in paying tribute to a colleague of mine when I was at the Ministry of Transport, Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett. I know from personal


experience and as a result of day-by-day working with him that he took these matters extremely seriously. He set in train the events which have led to the Bill. I pay my personal tribute to him.
I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) said. We are concerned with a measure which must stand the test of a good many years. There are very few votes in merchant shipping legislation, and there is always tremendous pressure on Governments to find time for all kinds of Bills. We must therefore take account of the fact that the Bill must stand up to the new types of ships, the new types of activity in which shipping will engage and the new techniques of manning. We must ensure that what is done now is flexible enough to meet the challenges which time will bring.
I am concerned about whether the Bill goes far enough. This may seem odd because there have been some mild complaints that perhaps it goes too far in giving the Government too much power to make regulations. What worries me is that the Pearson Report urged that we should have a comprehensive measure. The Bill is not a comprehensive measure. The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, is not being completely repealed. It is untrue to say that no attempts have been made at legislation on merchant shipping since 1894, as several hon. Members have alleged. At least 12 Merchant Shipping Acts mentioned in one of the Schedules to the Bill are being amended by the Bill. I therefore hope that we shall hear from the Minister of State that it is the Government's intention, once the Bill is on the Statute Book, to give very early consideration to consolidating the Merchant Shipping Acts generally. I do not deplore the Bill in the slightest because it does not attempt consolidation, but consolidation should have very high priority in the next Parliament.
We are providing a statutory framework only. By the Bill we are not seeking to regulate every type of activity or to lay down anything more than certain minimum standards for the shipping industry. In matters of welfare and safety, for example, most shipping companies in this country behave in a much better way than some companies abroad.

I do not say that every British shipping company is absolutely perfect, but I urge the House to remember that the standards observed by British companies go beyond those which the Bill seeks to lay down. All that we need to provide is a substructure to ensure that bad practices are not engaged in by shipping companies and to give every encouragement to the better ones to do even better.
I have said that there have been complaints from this side of the House, and, indeed, from the benches opposite, that the powers conferred by the Bill on the Government to make regulations are extensive. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford paid in asking the Government to let us have, in a suitable form, a sight of what they intend to do by way of draft regulations. We know the procedure of the House and how easy it is to let regulations go through without debate. If we have a particular anxiety to debate a matter in a regulation, a good deal of pressure is put on us by the usual channels, with which we are all familiar, not to take up the time of the House late at night. There is always the risk that in this way things slip through. I hope that the Government will do all that they can to assist in this regard.
I am puzzled by Clause 94, which invokes the negative procedure. Subsection (1) gives us power to pray against regulations, with one exception, and it is in respect of this exception that I should like an explanation. The exception is
regulations made under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to this Act.
Paragraph 2 of the Schedule refers to disciplinary offences on board fishing vessels. If my reading of the Bill is right, this means that regulations relating to disciplinary offences on board fishing vessels will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Why should it be necessary that regulations on disciplinary offences on board fishing vessels should come before the House for affirmative Resolution procedure whereas all the many other regulations made under the Bill will be subject only to the negative procedure? I should be grateful if the Government would explain this. I see the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, (Mr. McNamara) fidgeting. Perhaps he knows the reason.

Mr. McNamara: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman the reason; that is for the Government. But is the hon. Gentleman objecting or merely seeking information?

Mr. Hay: I thought that I made my position clear. I said that I should be grateful if I could be told by the Government why they chose to do it in this way. There may be a very profound and important reason for it, but this point should be elucidated.
I do not wish to say much about discipline. Many of the speeches today have revolved around discipline and drink. I do not want to talk about the second, but I should like to say a few words about the first.
I do not disagree with the formula which the Government have adopted in the Bill, following the recommendations of the Pearson Court of Inquiry, concerning the way in which disciplinary offences should be dealt with. The President of the Board of Trade was at some pains to repeat them; I will not go over them. However, I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind, as we consider the disciplinary Clauses, the paramount importance of retaining the responsibility of the master of the vessel.
It is intended to make minor disciplinary offences a matter of breach of contract, to be dealt with in that way; the slightly more serious ones will be dealt with by the master and the very serious ones will perhaps be dealt with in court. What worries me is that we may be whittling away the persuasive effect of disciplinary sanctions, which are not necessarily there to be used but are there because they act as a deterrent. This is an important matter to bear in mind. The fact that there are certain penal provisions in the Merchant Shipping Acts gives the master of a vessel a certain degree of reinforcement. It provides a deterrent to bad behaviour by men and the converse is the case. If one removes these provisions, there is the risk, to put it no higher, that men may think themselves no longer under proper discipline, and discipline in a general sense thereby suffers. We must be absolutely clear that we should not undermine the authority of the master of the vessel because he is the man who must at all times be in complete control of the ship and its complement.
Clause 48 is unusual. It raises the question of the crews' knowledge of English and I cannot trace any reference to this in any Merchant Shipping Act.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke (Darwen): There is one in Section 12 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906.

Mr. Hay: That shows that I should have consulted my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) earlier. Perhaps the fear that I might be incurring a fee prevented me from doing so. I am obliged to him and leave the point with alacrity.
Hon. Members have talked about the conditions of life on board ship. We must bear in mind that we are dealing nowadays with a much younger type of person than in the past. When one talks about merchant shipping, there is always the feeling of the sea shanty about it. But we are dealing now with an increasingly technological industry in which equipment, engines and all manner of things to do with ships are becoming more science-based. The people who have to operate them are more intelligent, better educated, better trained and, on the whole, younger, and therefore we must ensure, as far as it lies within our power in the context of the Bill, that the conditions on board are as attractive as they can be made for the men who still want to go to sea.
Mention has been made of wives on board. No one has pointed out, however, that one of the biggest deterrents to having wives on board ship is nothing more nor less than boredom. When ships are engaged in long voyages, from the Persian Gulf to Rotterdam, for example, taking many weeks round the Cape, what is the woman to do? The man can find something to do. The experience of the industry is that the wives get fed up with it after the first few months and want to go off the ship.
We have to take account of the fact that this is a very different industry today from what it was even 20 years ago, and I believe that it will be even more different in 10 or 20 years from now. That is why the Bill must be as flexible as possible so that it can stand the test of time in this constantly changing but ever more important industry.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) spoke for us all when he voiced our feelings at having to wait so long for the Bill. I thank him not only for his speech but for being the spokesman, as he so often is, for backbenchers on this side of the House.
I am not parochial but we have heard a lot about Liverpool, so I will remind the House that Hull is still our third port. Besides having magnificent cargo docks, one of which was opened by the Queen recently, we have the biggest deep sea fishing fleet in Western Europe. So, thousands of Hull workers and not least their wives will hail this Bill, particularly its safety regulations, with much joy in the coming years.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on his lucid exposition of the Bill and, indeed, I thank the Government on behalf of the people of Humberside for bringing in the Bill so speedily, particularly in view of the Holland-Martin Report after the trawling disasters we had early in 1968.
In view of what I said then, I propose to leave the main part of the Bill to those who are better qualified, being perhaps former merchant navy men or coming from ports with large merchant fleets. But I know that the National Union of Seamen has welcomed the Bill. I personally welcome the sweeping away of old, archaic provisions dating back almost to the seventeenth century; and I particularly view the Bill as an essay in democracy, in the power that the Board of Trade will have to set up ships' disciplinary committees. This is a great step forward because I take the view, that in our legislation, we should as far as possible give the men in these floating factories, as I term them, laws and day-by-day terms of service and working conditions which are as close as possible to those of shore-based workers. I therefore welcome anything that makes the men feel that their conditions are closer to those of their comrades and colleagues based on short.
The Bill has changed completely from the one published in July. I understand, having listened to the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) that the owners do not like some of these changes. In the fishing ports, we recognise and welcome

the change which puts fishing fleet disciplinary matters in Schedule 1. They are no longer included in the main Clauses 34 to 38. The future conditions of discipline in the fishing fleet are to be determined by regulations of the Board of Trade. The Schedule deals with the safety of men and later, I gather, we are to get a Bill which will deal with the safety of the ships.
I believe that cargo vessels, as floating factories, are completely different from fishing vessels. I also believe that these are really too utterly different industries, although they both operate at sea.
Hon. Members may consider that it would have been more logical to have had all matters concerning fishermen and their safety dealt with in a later Bill, which could have related to fishing vessels. The only reason this has not been done—I hope that the Minister will explain this clearly—is, I gather, speed. No doubt my right hon. Friend considers that the quicker we get the Bill on the Statute Book the quicker we will ameliorate the conditions of men working in fishing vessels.
I gather from the speech of the hon. Member for Lowestoft that he believes that the separation, so to speak, of fishermen in the Bill—in that they are dealt with in the Schedule rather than in Clauses 34 to 38—has resulted from pressure brought to bear by the T. & G.W.U. I see no objection to this, since we gather that there will be consultation before, during and after all the events mentioned in the Bill.

Mr. Prior: I did not say that. I said that certain matters which were in the Bill published before the Summer Recess were not in this Measure and that I did not like those matters having been deleted through outside pressure.

Mr. Johnson: I welcome what has occurred, and I will explain why.
It has been suggested that the Board of Trade may act more leniently towards fishermen than Clauses 34 to 38 would allow. My answer to that suggestion is that we should look to our port disciplinary committees for help and give them increasing powers and duties. After all, it is far better to have a system of voluntary discipline from the men, working in conjunction with owners in joint


committees. That is preferable to discipline being imposed by the Government. These committees work on a voluntary basis and since they are not statutory bodies I cannot expect the Minister to give a close reply about the work they do.
Having discussed the activities of the joint committees with dock workers and owners, I assure hon. Members that it is felt in Hull, and probably in Grimsby, that these committees have a much greater part to play in future. I have every reason to believe that in Lowestoft, Leith, South Shields, Fleetwood, Aberdeen and elsewhere these joint committees are doing equally good work, not only in matters of discipline but in helping to get the industry into better shape.
In Hull—I imagine that this happens in other ports—we have an efficient fishermen's ragistration scheme. In my constituency it functions under the guidance of a former T. & G.W. union official, Mr. Bob Head, who is doing an excellent job. Men who are not conforming to the standards of behaviour and discipline that are required on vessels can be suspended from the registration list or, in certain circumstances, have their names deleted from the list. The members of the T. & G.W.U. welcome action being taken against hands who misbehave or who do not pull their weight because they are determined to keep up the standards of deckhands.
If, by bad behaviour, or for some other reason, a deckhand is not deemed a fit man to go to sea out of Hull or any other port, and his name is struck from the registration list, he will have to leave the industry. I submit that that is a more severe punishment than any fines, even of £50 or £100, that might be specified in the Bill.
I call in aid in this connection the comments in the Holland-Martin Report about the work of the joint committees. There is every reason for my right hon. Friend to remove these committees from their present non-statutory basis, and I suggest that he should consider making them statutory bodies. Vesting day for this purpose could be in, say, two years' time, by when all the various joint committees could be got ready for their new status. Holland-Martin comments on the functioning of these committees in glowing terms. The report says that they are

… a means of controlling the quality of the labour force…unsatisfactory workers may be eliminated or suspended from the register…
Reference has been made to the practice of owners' agents recruiting crews at the last moment before going to sea. If all fishermen were on an official list and if only those on that list could go to sea, the vicious practice of runners picking up crews at the last moment to make up the complement of a ship's crew would come to an end. As for them using whisky to persuade men to go abroad, we heard a wonderful tale earlier about a man who dived into the harbour because he did not want to go to sea. I wonder how many fishermen dive into Hull dock and return to their families because they do not wish to go to sea in the boats in which they have signed on? I do not know of any such cases.
Holland-Martin also says:
… the sanction of suspension or dismissal from the register may be used to enforce standards of discipline ߪ
and later, in chapter 12 of the report, this point is amplified.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider placing these committees on a statutory basis and giving them more power. This would make for greater functional democracy in our fishing ports. Owners and men would more easily get together, not only to settle their differences but to set standards of behaviour and discipline, and these standards would then be more easily enforceable.
I am sure that ports other than Hull have schemes like the one I have described. A scheme of this type is a more democratic way of organising the industry than anything laid down hard and fast in law enforced by penal sanctions. The industry can put its own house in order, but it needs committees of this kind to be at the centre.
Holland-Martin makes severe comments about men being under the influence of alcohol, and Clause 28 refers to the offence of men reporting to ships under the influence of drink. I gather that the fines are not to exceed £100. However, Holland-Martin is doubtful if fines will provide a complete solution. I am more than doubtful. The present Board of Trade regulations only make a contribution to the question of discipline and thus insuring that men are suitable


types to go to sea. Statutory matters of that kind only provide an atmosphere. They cannot provide a positive solution.
I hope that any training courses will emphasise the dangers of drink to young deck-hands. In cricketing language, the law in these cases is only a long—stop. It merely gives the atmosphere in which the men can work efficiently and without danger.
In regard to paragraph 4 of the Schedule, I believe that the question of hours of work of fishermen is most important. Some of my constituents work 18 hours, or even more, hauling in fish in the most strenuous part of their voyage. Tired and inefficient men can mean accidents. I hope that all fishing workers in their international organisation or in their national union will attempt to get a maximum set for the working day. Following the lines of the Holland-Martin Report, I asked the Minister what was the percentage of its recommendations which did not need legislation. The reply was about three-quarters. It includes such matters as protective clothing and covers the matter of shore leave between voyages, which is a most important matter. I believe that fishermen stay too short a time on shore between ending one voyage and going off on the next. I feel that it is important that they should have about four days between voyages of 16 to 20 days. I understand that vessel owners and the union are negotiating on these matters at the moment. I hope that they can be settled amicably since it will lead to a better atmosphere in the application of other matters in the Bill.
Deep sea fishing is a tough industry, and sometimes it can be a savage industry. The men in it deserve the best possible working conditions. I believe that the Bill when implemented will provide a genuine fishermen's charter.

7.15 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: It is a pleasure to take part in a debate such as this in which, broadly speaking, the "competitive insult system" has been abandoned and both sides of the House are in broad agreement on the matters under discussion. In such an atmosphere the House listens to sincere

and well-informed speeches, as has been the case in this debate hitherto.
I welcome the Bill to the extent that it brings up to date the regulations concerning the Merchant Navy, which is one of Britain's most important industries, but is almost unheeded and unsung. In our obsession with achieving exports we sometimes forget what a huge proportion of our vital exports is carried by sea, and can be carried in no other way. The debate gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to the masters and officers and crews of merchant ships. I speak with great emotion about these men, having had over 30 years' experience in working with them in peace and in war.
In passing, I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will talk to his colleagues. He must realise that since our ships ply all over the world, the officers and men in them need to be able to see how their ships could be defended if necessity arose, not only in war but in conditions of harassment below the threshold of declared war. This is one of the matters which is of concern to officers and men in the modern fleets of today.
I should like to deal with two points in the Bill, one relating to living conditions and the other to disciplinary matters. Let us rejoice in the enormous improvements which have taken place in recent years in the conditions for crews. I always thought it horrifying that ships in the past were designed so that the crew normally lived up for'ard in the fo'c'sle. One can imagine what life was like, being battered and banged when going into a head sea. Nowadays men are very much better accommodated, fed and so on. The days of the
Dirty British coaster with a salt-caked smoke stack, Butting through the Channel in the mad March days
are not gone but going fast.
The skills required by the men are greatly different in these modern days. In the old days we thought about lookouts, holy-stoning and red lead. Nowadays it is radar sets, echo-sounders, automatic scrubbers and paint sprays. This is nowhere more true than in the engine room. It used to be said that one could put one's head down into the engine room hatch and shout, "Are ye there, Mac?". and the reply would always come back, "Aye". They did a tremendous job. One used to think of sweating stokers


shovelling coal. Nowadays it is white overalls, automatic boiler controls and diesels. The days of biscuits and weevils are being replaced by refrigeration, air-conditioning, good meals and cabins for all. In these days, therefore, it is right to overhaul the law and the regulations affecting the men and how they live in our ships.
Coming to disciplinary matters, I tend to take a different view from many other people. Many have taken on the idea of ships' committees, as envisaged in Clause 36. I ask the President what are the principal reasons for its inclusion in the Bill? It cannot be a slavish wish to include all the findings of the Pearson Report—not from a Government who behaved as they did over the Report of the Boundaries Commission. Therefore, we must put that theory on one side. The Pearson Report itself is half-hearted about the whole idea of ships' committees. It gives many reasons against the idea. What considerations were, then, uppermost in the President's mind when he decided to include it in the Bill?
The reasons against the ships' committees have not been retailed by any hon. Member who has spoken so far in the debate. The Pearson Report says in paragraph 295
… it is … the essence of the proposal that the ship's committee should always be a mixed tribunal including at least one rating and at least one officer
That is common ground. Then it goes on:
There would be a danger of serious difficulties arising. A division of opinion on the ship's committee between the officers' representative or representatives and the ratings" representative or representatives might spread antagonism between the two sides throughout the ship's company and do great damage to morale. Moreover, a ratings' representative on the ship's committee would be in an awkward position. Sometimes the evidence would compel him to join with the officers' representative or representatives in finding that the accused seaman did commit the offence and ought to be fined. But some members of the ship's company who had not heard the evidence might remain convinced that the accused did not commit the offence or ought not to be fined, and so there would be resentment against the ratings' representative who had concurred in the unpopular decision.
That is a very strong point clearly set out in the Pearson Report. I should like to know the Minister's views on that argument.
The National Union of Seamen apparently objected to the master having the jurisdiction on the ground that—this can be seen from paragraph 294 of Pearson—
although the great majority of masters exercise it justly, there is a small minority who do not.
I believe that it is a very small minority of masters who do not exercise this power justly. In the great majority of cases masters of ships are wise, experienced and just men, and I am sure the President would join with me in paying tribute to them.
I doubt whether the National Union of Seamen would wish to see the disadvantages which I have read from the Pearson Report introduced to deal with this tiny minority of allegedly unjust masters. This is especially true when the appeal procedures outlined in the Bill come into force. I am in favour of these appeal procedures. When they are in force they should take care of the points perfectly adequately.
On a practical point, I have always admired the way that masters of merchant ships exercise authority. I have often felt, lying in my bunk, that with no Naval Discipline Act to back them up they do a remarkable job. They must depend absolutely upon their own individual personality for maintaining discipline, and upon very little else.
I am sure that any experienced officer or rating in the Merchant Navy knows that a happy ship can result under a captain who is known to be firm and strict, yet fair and just. They also know that this result is not achieved by a Captain Bligh personality. In parentheses, I believe that this may be a libel on Captain Bligh who, our history books tell us, was a quite humane person.
Great care must be taken, in introducing any new procedures, that the authority of the master is in no way undermined. The master ultimately is responsibile for the safety and well-being of his crew and decisions have to be taken by him and discipline enforced sometimes in an instant. There is no time for a committee meeting or any long rigmarole in these circumstances. But I emphasise that it is important to ensure that safeguards are available for any ratings who feel that they have been unjustly treated. The proposed procedure


in the Bill achieves this. I should also like to see some safeguard against frivolous appeals. This would be a valid point to be taken in Committee.
I do not believe that there should even be experiments with ships' committees. The possibility that ships' committees might be introduced in some ships but not in others would be a potentially constant irritant. It would adversely affect industrial relations on board and achieve the very opposite of what the report and the Bill and both sides of industry set out to achieve.
The master is usually colloquially and affectionately known on board ship as "The Old Man". Only an arrogant an can wish to dispense with the accumulated experience of the past.
The Minister and other hon. Members have spoken of the paramount importance of safety at sea, and the Pearson Report emphasises the need for discipline at sea, which must be different from conditions ashore. I agree with both these considerations for they are but two sides of the same coin.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: My constituents physically live near and by the sea. A large number build ships, another large number repair them, and a final considerable number sail in them. Indeed, many do the lot. It is interesting to note that in almost every family in South Shields there is somebody who has been connected in one way or another with ships, and very often with all three occupations: building, repairing and sailing in them. Therefore, it is not surprising that my constituents have urged me for some time to do everything that I can to see the Bill, or a Measure of this kind, on to the Statute Book. Indeed, long before the seamen's strike the matter was being discussed with me, and anxieties were expressed about the delay years ago in bringing this Measure forward.
Amongst my constituents are some of the more vigorous and vital members of the National Union of Seamen who have always made clear that they, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), have not been prepared to tolerate any kind of injustice, whether it appeared to come from their

leaders or from their masters, in past years. I was delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington was able to make his contribution today, because no one has played a bigger part in the fight for better conditions for seamen in past years. His record is well known amongst all involved in the industry.
I welcome the comments that have been made by hon. Members on both sides on the immense revolutionary change that the Bill represents. At long last we are bringing up to date legislation concerning conditions, discipline and other matters that have lagged behind for so long and tended to cut off seamen from others in our community as though they lacked the kind of responsibility that others possessed. This was deeply resented by many of my constituents who took a very different view of the position. So it is not altogether remarkable that my constituents, members of the National Union of Seamen, and other bodies, welcome many of the provisions of the Bill.
However, they still have many criticisms to make. I should like to mention one criticism which has not so far been voiced. While it is understood and welcomed that special reference and special legal provision needs to be made for those going to sea in fishing vessels, many of my constituents argue that the same point can be raised on behalf of those who are employed, for example, on cross-channel ferries and operating in coastal waters. It is hard to see why an argument that applies to fishing vessels and has prompted the decision to give them special consideration should not also apply to other categories of ship. If the argument is that it is because they are moving from a fixed port, that also applies in many other cases.
Let us consider the length of voyage. Some fishing vessels go on quite extended voyages to their fishing grounds and may be away for as long as other vessels, or much longer. The size of vessel varies enormously. Size is not dictated according to whether it is a fishing vessel or not.
Changes are taking place in the seagoing industry generally. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friends to let us know whether further consideration may be given to the position of men on short


voyages and operating in home waters where conditions, discipline, safety on board, and so on, might be more analogous to the situation in factories on land than on vessels.
Apart from that important point which many of my constituents have raised, there is a real welcome and pride that it has been possible to bring this Measure forward in this Session.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Like the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), I do not intend to detain the House for long. Along with hon. Members who have spoken with great friendliness, I, too, welcome the Bill. There are a large number of men from Northern Ireland in the Merchant Navy. I have cousins at sea, and it is hardly possible to sail on a merchant ship anywhere in the world without finding an Irishman either below or above deck.
There are a number of points which might be raised during the debate on the Bill, and some have already been mentioned. I should like, first, to say a general word about the background to the Bill. A major reform of this nature has, of necessity, a long gestation period. A multitude of old Acts govern relationships at sea, together with regulations made on each ship, and it has taken a long time for the Government—and I am not laying the blame on any particular Government—to get round to the chore of going through the various Acts, weeding them out, and drafting the Bill. The Bill itself will probably have to remain on the Statute Book for a long time, because a general consolidation Measure such as this, rather like the constitution of a newly emerged country, is designed to last for some time, and it is not easy to change it.
There have been rapid changes in conditions at sea. In his Report Lord Pearson referred to containerisation, to roll-on and roll-off, to ferries, and to other developments in our Merchant Navy. These developments, rather like the developments in aviation, take place so rapidly that it is difficult to keep up with them.
When I came into the House about 10 years ago, a great discussion was taking place in the shipbuilding industry about whether 100,000-ton tankers would

be generally accepted, whether they were capable of being navigated and sailed properly, and what would happen if there was a disaster. Now they talk, not about 100,000-ton tankers, but about building 150,000-ton, and even 200,000-ton tankers. It may not be long before atomic power is adopted by the merchant navies of the world, particularly those which ply the deep sea trade. All these things bring about tremendous changes in the functions of, and the skills required from, a merchant seaman. We therefore must be sure that the legislation we draft is flexible enough to take care of the completely new requirements for which this new world of the merchant navy will call.
Seamen are a very conservative race of people. Indeed, many shipowners are ultra-conservative. The criticisms made against such bodies as the National Maritime Board show how reluctant people are to change the existing machinery. Lord Pearson in his court of inquiry took evidence from a wide range of bodies and shipping companies, and went in great detail into the matters which should be covered by legislation for our navy. He dealt with such matters as the engagement and discharge of crews, wages, health and welfare, which are of growing importance—and I welcome the provisions in the Bill about these matters —the method of dealing with offences by seamen, and so on.
I draw the attention of the House to the change which has occurred in the degree of responsibility which must now be accepted by seamen. I think that this answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson). Now that ships are so much more advanced and more expensive, greater skill is required by seamen in handling them, because, if there is any neglect or default on the part of a seaman, the amount of damage that might ensue can be considerable indeed. Against that background, it is perhaps good to note that the penalties laid down in the Bill and the nature of them have been reduced.
The Bill deals also with such matters as civil liability, absence without leave, smuggling, trade disputes, manning and certification, and the death abroad of a seaman. The provisions in Clause 31 about disciplinary committees cause me


some anxiety. I wonder how practical they are. Perhaps the Minister will say a little more about this when he replies to the debate.
In opening the debate the right hon. Gentleman referred to these provisions being introduced on a few ships on a trial basis to start with. I wonder how these ships will be selected. Does the Minister intend to apply these provisions only to tankers, or only to container ships? If they are to be applied to all classes of ships, how will he single out the ships on which the trial is to be run? I cannot imagine shipowners and skippers queuing up at the Ministry to ask for the new ideas to be tried out on their ships, and I therefore foresee some problems arising because of these provisions.
As an island nation, we are, of necessity, a maritime nation. Unfortunately, our share of the world's merchant shipping has fallen, but it still represents a substantial proportion of the total world shipping. Our fleet totals 21½ million gross tons, and represents about 13 per cent, of the total world tonnage. There are more than 113,000 seamen registered, not including Asian seamen. The merchant shipping world is intensely competitive. Speaking as a Member for a shipbuilding constituency, I naturally look to the British Mercantile Marine as our first customer. Substantial sums of money, both private and public, have been put into modernising our yards in Northern Ireland. It is important, not only for the prosperity and welfare of this country as a whole, but for the prosperity of our shipyards and all those who depend on them, that our Merchant Navy should be competitive and prosperous.
Shipping companies registered abroad, particularly in the Far East, but also in such European countries as France, benefit from subsidies while shipowners who have their vessels built in British yards sometimes suffer certain disadvantage by having to pay over the odds becase they are not purchasing ships at the subsidised prices. This means that our shipping must be competitive, and if wages are to be increased, as the Bill provides, the productivity of the men employed must be commensurably increased.
Lord Pearson has stated in the Report that such another strike as that which

was the background to the Bill would be disastrous to the British shipping industry, Therefore, a little more than the provisions of the Bill is required by those responsible for running the industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) has said that in shipping disputes a fifth party is the national interest. The national interest is not only involved in detailed matters of disputes and wages but is important in a wider context. The Bill must therefore be applied flexibly so that our shipping may continue to sail the seas, and bring in those valuable invisible earnings which will enable the country to remain in the vanguard of the major shipping nations.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. John Golding: The crews of the Post Office cable ships are concerned about the Bill, and I am here to express their fears. I speak as one who has, through the Post Office Engineering Union, long been concerned with their welfare.
Before 1st October these men were servants of the Crown and were therefore not subject to the Merchant Shipping Acts. They had a separate code of regulations, and their negotiations were conducted quite separately. On 1st October, consequent on the changed status of the Post Office, they ceased to be civil servants, with the result that the Merchant Shipping Acts now apply to them unless they are specially exempted. I believe that these men ought to be specially exempted.
The Government assured all Post Office staff, including the cable ship crews that their conditions under the Post Office Corporation would be in no way different from those that they had enjoyed under the Post Office, unless those conditions were varied by negotiation or, in some cases, by arbitration. Because of those assurances, it is felt that the Government should insert a Clause exempting the Post Office cable ship crews at least in respect of the conditions. If that is not done the Government will, however, inadvertently, be changing staff conditions without the agreement of the unions, and breaching assurances given by the Postmaster-General.
For many months the Post Office and the unions have been drawing up a code


of discipline for insertion into the Corporation's articles, and this code is very different from that in the Bill. If the Government have drawn up an alternative code, it is wrong that Post Office cable ship crews should not be exempt. In this respect, the provisions of the Bill should not apply to cable ship crews, and if the Government are not prepared to give their assurances the force of law at the first opportunity the cable ship men must naturally wonder why. If some of the Clauses are not to apply, why is that not stated explicitly in the Bill?
The Post Office has stated in writing that it would stick to its disciplinary code. It said that although the assurances it gave would not be binding in law, the integrity of the Corporation as an employer is such that however strained relationships might become there could be no question of the Corporation ignoring its undertakings.
An important consideration is what might happen in the event of an industrial dispute. Before 1st October legal penalties could not be applied to the cable ship crews when they took militant action but the Bill makes them subject to legal penalties. This is a very clear case of their conditions of service being substantially altered without the agreement of the unions concerned. The Post Office has stated that the old arrangements worked satisfactorily for both sides in the peculiar circumstances of working at sea.
Whether or not the Bill applies to the cable ships, some of the legal penalties are unnecessary. No one can contest the fact that safety at sea is all-important. No one will deny the need for penalties to ensure the safety of men at sea. But a distinction must be drawn between legislation which forces men to be concerned with safety and legislation which forces them to undertake routine duties unconnected with the ship's safety. It has been argued that a ship is not a factory, but in certain respects it can be just that. It can be both ship and factory, and that is why, although I see the reason behind Clause 27, I do not regard Clauses 28, 29 and 30 as essential.
Assuming that the Bill is to apply to cable ships—I sincerely hope that it never will—Clause 29 could be used against men refusing to operate cable laying

equipment. No question of safety would be involved. It would be similar, in principle, to men refusing to lay cable between two towns in Great Britain. A simple industrial relations dispute could lead, under this penal Clause, to men being fined £50 each. It should be made clear that the only actions which should lead to legal penalties are those involving danger to men. There should be no legal penalties where the only thing at issue is commercial profit.
I ask the Government to consider carefully the question of exempting the Post Office cable ships from the Bill. Following long experience of good working —this is acknowledged by the Post Office and the unions—a new code of discipline has been worked out. All concerned are sure it is best suited to the unique situation of the cable ships. All are certain, too—this is important—that it fulfils the obligation on the Government following the assurances which they gave to the Post Office staff. In these circumstances, I am sure that the Government would do well, even at this stage, to discuss with the Post Office unions involved the Amendments necessary to ensure that the Government's assurances are given the authority of law.

7.52 p.m.

Captain Walter Elliot: I apologise for having had to leave the debate on two or three occasions. I had to meet some deputations to discuss a dispute which is exercising our minds at the present time.
In his opening speech, the Minister said that he thought that the Bill would alleviate the harshness of discipline at sea. I think that that is an exaggeration. Discipline is not harsh in the Merchant Navy to-day. Nor do I think that it is discipline which is responsible for the high turnover of seamen in employment at sea.
I wish briefly to look at the Clause dealing with offences and discipline largely because I regard the wording as very loose. I do not wish to take Committee points, but I hope that, when the Bill is in Committee the Minister will consider this aspect of the matter. Here are some instances of what I mean.
Clause 27(1) refers to offences by seamen under the influence of drink or drugs


at the time, and Clause 28 refers to a seaman
under the influence of drink…to such an extent that his capacity to carry out his duties is impaired".
The expression, "under the influence of drink" is a lawyer's expression, and it is extremely difficult to interpret. Today, we have the breathalyser for the motorist, and he is run in if his blood contains more than a certain percentage of alcohol. We know that many people are perfectly capable of driving their cars even if their blood contains that percentage of alcohol. It may be that the intention is to apply a similar sort of test to seamen at sea. That would be most unfair because, under Clause 27, the penalties are severe—possibly two years' imprisonment, or, on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding £200. That is a very severe penalty, and that point should be looked at.
Clause 29 refers to a seaman disobeying a lawful command relating to the operation of a ship or its equipment. Many lawful commands might not relate to those two matters, and one can well imagine arguments which might go on in trying to decide whether they did. I realise that there is a reference in Clause 30 to persistent disobedience and so on, but I consider that that matter, too, should be looked at.
Clause 31, dealing with absence without leave, uses the word "recklessness". Who on earth can interpret what recklessness is? In Clause 39(2) there is a reference to absence due to an accident or mistake. I presume that these sanctions are put in for a purpose, and it is right that they should be there, but the use of words of that kind in the Bill could lead to endless argument so that no decision was ever reached. I hope that the loose wording will be dealt with in Committee.
Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), I am concerned about the proposal that all or part of the master's disciplinary powers should go to a disciplinary committee. At this stage I am not so much concerned about how effective such a committee would be. What worries me is the effect it will have in reducing the status of the master. I do not see how it could do other than that,

and, in my view, the master's status requires bolstering.
We all know that the man going to sea nowadays is no longer the horny-handed shellback; often, he is a skilled technician of considerable education. The effect of this is not to make the job of the master or officers easier; in many ways, it requires higher standards from master and officers. I view with considerable concern a possible reduction in the status of the master which might well lead to a reduction in the calibre of the man going into the Merchant Navy. I have the greatest admiration for the captains of our merchant ships, and I should be most distressed to see any lowering of the calibre of the men.
If there is a disciplinary committee, who will be responsible for disclipline? Without discipline, safety is endangered. Again, I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester that it may be very unfair to ask two crew members who may be friends of the man under investigation to judge whether he is guilty, and I agree with the suggestion which came from the benches opposite that it might be better to get the best man in the ship, whoever he may be, to act as the friend of the accused.
Presumably all the sanctions are there because they are necessary. Even if they are in the background, ultimately sanctions of a sort are required.
I agree also that there must be an appeals procedure. My last conversations with merchant navy officers took place some years ago. They always told me that by the time they had gone through the procedure of punishing a man and then dealing with his appeal, it was not worth doing anything about it. I am not certain what is the answer, but I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that with the appeals procedure there should be some sanctions dealing with the frivolous appeal. That is very important.
I welcome the Bill. We have been served extremely well by the Merchant Navy in war and in peace. Its losses have been tremendous, but it has never failed us. As a number of hon. Members have pointed out, this is the first legislation that we have had for many years. I hope that we get it right so that it serves us in good stead over the


years ahead. I hope that the Minister will keep a very open mind on Amendments which may be tabled when the Bill goes to Committee.

8.02 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: My interest in the Bill lies in the fact that during a period of my life I had an opportunity to serve and work on ships, perhaps unfortunately not as a deckhand, but first as a checker and then as a purser. In that time, I was able to see life from within a ship, and, while I have no doubt that conditions on board our ships have changed greatly over the years, I found that living was good. It must be said that the sleeping quarters were not to be matched with those in first class hotels. Officers and some of the stewards slept in the dining saloon, while others used the fo'c'sle.
Still it was a good and interesting life, and in it one realised the importance of discipline, the enormous powers of the captain and the fact that that power is accepted by every person on board ship. Indeed, if it were not accepted, chaos would be the result. When any trouble occurs on board ship with any crew member, the captain intervenes to exercise his discipline, and it is respected and accepted by every individual aboard.
My other interest in the Bill arises from the fact that I represent one of the great seagoing and seaport areas of the United Kingdom. My constituency lies along the south bank of the River Clyde. Govan has been a pioneer in the shipping side of industry. We built the first ships to cross the Atlantic, and they sailed from Govan. It has continued to thrive on the shipping industry. I make no mention of shipbuilding, which is not appropriate at the moment. Nevertheless, the great ships which have sailed on the oceans in many cases have been built in Govan. Perhaps the greatest was the "Queen Elizabeth", which was built on the northern bank of the Clyde.
The port of Glasgow covers a vast area of which Govan is a part. Last year, the port sent out 3,049 ships. Into the port of Glasgow there came 3,045 ships. Employed in those ventures there were 1,975 registered dock workers, of whom, on average, 1,319 were regularly employed. That represents an employment strength continually of about 65 per cent. While that is not so good as we would wish, it shows a healthy state of affairs.
Into the country through the port of Glasgow there came £152,256,477 worth of imports, commodities which we needed for all phases of our life. From Glasgow seaport there went £158,746,297 worth of exports. That gave us a balance in our favour of £6,489,820, which indicates the state of the city's export and import trade.
The port is paying its way, and, as people who are interested in the port, it is our business in this House to see that it continues to pay its way and produce the surplus which is necessary for expansion.
I do not intend to say much about the Bill at the moment, because it is the type of Measure which we can best deal with in Committee.
The main difficulties of the seamen appear to centre round Clauses 28, 29 and 30. I have gone to some trouble to consult the seamen about the Bill, and this is the view of those with whom I have been in touch. I have heard one of my colleagues say that these Clauses could quite well be omitted and do the Bill no harm but a lot of good. I hope that my right hon. Friend takes note of that. There are others among the seamen who feel that Clauses 34 and 35 cover adequately the misdemeanours alleged to be dealt with in Clauses 28, 29 and 30.
When we have substantial agreement among seamen about the value of this Bill we should listen to what they say, particularly with respect to changes which seem minimal. The seamen are not happy about Clause 8(2) and (3). Neither are they content with Clause 39. It is important to realise the attitude of the men for whom this Measure is being introduced. These constituents of ours have given tremendous support to us as Members of this Government. On Clydeside the seamen have co—operated excellently in working to produce a surplus. As Clydeside has done something for us, it is entitled to ask us to do something for it.
I am sure that my hon. Friends with similar interests will have the same account to present to the House. That is my position. Most matters can be dealt with more fully in Committee, and I will leave matters there until we reach that stage.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I begin by endorsing everything that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) has said about the significant contribution which seamen are making to the balance of payments via the shipping industry which they serve. This was a well-deserved tribute, which is given too infrequently. The whole House will be pleased that the hon. Member has made it. Equally, I should like to say how pleased I was to hear the substantial figures of trading for the Clyde. Although my connection with the Clyde is remote I do have one, and we are all pleased that these figures are growing month by month.
This is a difficult Bill for some of us. Those of us who feel we have an interest in the industry, as I have, and my interest is well known, may also feel that our competence to speak on the particular subjects dealt with in the Bill is limited. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) have a special experience which qualifies them to make comments, particularly on the disciplinary aspects of the Bill, of interest to us all. I have no such experience and my comments are to some extent more general.
This Bill is substantially welcomed by the whole industry. Although we shall undoubtedly have some interesting and possibly prolonged arguments in Committee, the general feeling is that it is overdue. We shall be very glad to see it reaching the Statute Book and there is little doubt that the tone of industrial relations, if we get our answers right, ought to be substantially improved. We should also pay tribute to the Pearson Committee, not least to those who gave evidence because it is on the basis of that evidence that the excellent report has been written and it is on the basis of the report that the Bill has been so carefully drafted.
I want to raise two relatively small but important points of principle. The first arose from the speech by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), to whom we listened with interest and delight. He raised the point about the comparative position of the British sea-

man's wage. In a brief intervention I was unable to make the point I would have liked to have done, which was simply that if we go back 60 years we would find that British seamen's wages were pre-eminent. We all recognise that they have fallen, certainly in relation to the United States and Canada, where special subsidies and other conditions exist, but equally in relation to Scandinavia, which they have been behind probably for some decades, and also, more recently, they have fallen behind other countries in Western Europe particularly France, West Germany and possibly more recently Italy.
This is one of the general consequences of the prosperity of the Common Market which is raising wage levels, not least those of seamen, in Western Europe. The point I wanted to make was that it may be, and this is subject to statistical proof, that the absolute position of our seamen has fallen faster than the absolute position of other United Kingdom wage earners. I doubt it, but the important conclusion which we should draw from the disadvantage which our seamen suffer is that this is a disadvantage now shared, to some extent, right across the board.
We should take note of the fact that members of the United States Congress recently increased their salaries from 30,000 dollars to 42,500 dollars per annum. This perhaps emphasises that Members of this House are in some sort of comparable position. The doorkeeper of the United States Congress earns, I am told, 8,000 dollars a year, which perhaps suggests that these comparisons should be kept as part of a whole, rather than taken in isolation.

Mr. Simon Mahon: In the temporary absence from the Chamber of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), it is incumbent upon me to say that the comparison that he made was not between the doorkeeper of this House and the doorkeeper in the United States Congress, but between sailor and sailor all over the world.

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that there is any dispute between us. The comparison between sailor and sailor is important and interesting, and if our sailors are comparatively badly paid so are people in many other occupations in this country over the same range of comparison.
I turn briefly to another issue which has some relevance: we all know the phrase, "the revolution of rising expectations", and we know that this applies equally within the shipping industry. A ship in this respect is not unlike a house, except that it is much more comprehensive, and often includes a hospital and a whole range of facilities which are normally to be found in a small town. That situation applies, at least, in a large passenger liner.
Even here, there is within any large fleet, and within the world fleet, a spectrum of conditions, which is an inevitable and unavoidable function of the age of the fleet and the age distribution of the fleet. Normally a ship, like a house, is built to last for at least 25 years and normally, within the stock of ships as within the stock of houses there will be the new, the very best, the mediocre and the old. We are concerned to generalise as far as we can and as fast as society can afford, both within the maritime realm and the housing realm, and all the other matters that we discussed, the very best. But if we are too ambitious in our attempts to generalise we can easily bankrupt society. This applies equally in our wholly legitimate preoccupation with the best standards in shipping, which we want to see generated throughout the fleet as fast as we can so that we can build and replace the older ships with the most modern.
We can allow ourselves to be carried away all too easily if we look at the 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. of ships launched within the last three or four years and say, "These are the conditions that we should have in all the ships. What a pity we did not have them 25 years ago." My answer is that by the logic of events, in 25 years' time we shall be making the same comment with regard to the newest ships then being produced, which will compare favourably with those that we are now building and regard as something wonderful.
The industry has been described as a conservative one. It may interest hon. Members if I describe an incident which I believe is absolutely true and which illustrates this point in a way more favourable to the industry than hon. Members may imagine. I am told that on the very first occasion on which the United States navy considered putting a

steam engine into a ship the then Board of Admiralty, or whatever it was, in the United States was most reluctant to do this, and was persuaded against the advice of many admirals. Eventually a design was produced and when the Board considered it it decided, on the basis of various old criteria, that although the ship would have a steam engine and a screw, because it was a naval vessel it should also have some masts and sails.
The ship was built with mast and sails, but in the process of being built it was discovered that it would be necessary to reduce the size of the boilers. Upon reducing the size of the boilers they found that it would be necessary to reduce the size of the screw. As a result of all this the whole thing became a farce, and the ship was ultimately launched with neither steam nor screw. This is an illustration of the way in which the conservatism of marine or martime matters is by no means the prerogative of our own maritime industry or of any other maritime industry but is fairly widespread and possibly more deep-seated in this area than in others.
Within the last seven years we have seen our shipping industry take some dramatic steps forward. They are the most dramatic steps that have been taken for a long time. Some very bold decisions have been made, and some large sums of money have been committed. With every day that passes hon. Members realise how much more old-fashioned the concept of sides in industry is becoming, and that we are dealing with the whole industrial front, and that it is essentially a co-operative process in which large numbers of men perform special functions of different kinds. If, by passing this Measure we can help to put this concept out of the way, behind us, the Bill will have served a very useful and constructive purpose.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: If I do not follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) I am sure that he will forgive me. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) was not in the Chamber when the hon. Member made his comment upon the Common Market. If he had been I might have been ten


minutes later in starting my speech. I was rather horrified by what the hon. Member said about making alterations to the Bill in Committee. I volunteered to go on the Bill in Committee, hoping that the hon. Member for Langstone would be on the Ports Bill in Committee. If that is not to be the case I shall be a very reluctant volunteer.
I join in the general welcoming of the Bill. I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend taking notes on the Front Bench—the Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment and Productivity—because he and I have spent many long hours talking about various types of industrial legislation, not the least of which was obviously this Bill. I am therefore aware of the work that has been done in all the Government Departments, and not only in the Board of Trade, in making the Bill acceptable to all parts of the industry. We often tend to think in terms of one Department being the parent, but in this case many Departments have been involved.
I also welcome the fact that many interests have been consulted in the preparation of the Bill. So many have been consulted that we have had a wonderful metamorphosis taking place between the Bill as published in July and the Bill that we are now discussing. I am glad of that. At the start of the debate, when the spokesman on the Opposition Front Bench said that they were in agreement with the Government over the Bill I thought to myself, "Oh, my goodness—we are back to last night again", particularly when the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) nodded in agreement. That fear has now happily gone, as a result of some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and the interesting comments of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin).
The old Act was passed in the days of sail and steam, when there were no modern communications, and when seamen and fishermen spent months or even years away from home. In those days their only contact with civilisation and with their home country—the only unifying forces for them—were the ship in which they sailed and the ship's articles. They were bound by the slavery of the

ship's articles. The 1894 Act was regarded in its time as the charter of the industry, as this Act will be. Like many Charters, it needed to be updated. It may be that my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) is a little older than I am, but our backgrounds are similar. We were brought up to believe in three things. We wanted to end decasualisation in the docks; we wanted to nationalise the docks, and we wanted to get rid of the 1894 Act—and in the lifetime of this Government it looks as though we shall achieve all three objectives.
The 1894 Act has been part of the folklore of our families long before the 1967 strike, something we knew all about before it was fashionable. It is something that we were brought up on. But now we have come to a different situation. We have new means of communication. More regular trips take place. Crews are now flown out to their ships. There is a rapidity of movement between crews. The whole atmosphere has changed. There is therefore need for the change that has taken place, and particularly the disciplinary changes. In the past men were held down by fear—the fear of deprivation and of what might happen to them. Now that fear can be replaced by trust, understanding and respect. People can work as members of a team and not be held in fear and subjugation.
I deal mainly with the labour relations question, not because I have no suggestions to make on other questions, but because I realise that other hon. Members representing ports, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), wish to speak.
I want to set out the basic principles upon which I and the union of which I am a member stand in relation to the Bill. Any regulation governing the safety of a ship, its crew, or its passengers, or which seeks to enforce any act or omission which would otherwise place them in jeopardy, must be rigorously enforced and backed by the force of the law. That is what I jotted down when the hon. Member for Lowestoft was speaking. That is the first general principle. I do not say that in punishment we should necessarily revert to flogging and keel hauling. However, there should be everything but that to enforce safety


at sea—the safety of the crew, the ship, the passengers and the cargo.
Having said that and established that I am talking about safety, I go on to say that any regulation which is not concerned with safety under that broad definition but which is concerned with working practices—as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) said, a modern trawler is very much a floating factory— must be governed by rules governing industrial disputes. The matter should be settled by both sides of industry. That is why I especially welcome my right hon. Friend's recognition of the splendid work which has been done by both sides of industry on the disciplinary shore based bodies.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft chided us about "industrial cowboys". Disciplinary committees are the very bodies to deal with these things. Because of the information that goes from port to port, in many cases they can penalise to a much greater extent than the old Act; namely, by depriving a man of his livelihood. When the original register was set up at Grimsby, a considerable number of those who applied to go on to the register were not considered, for a variety of reasons. Because such committees can deprive men of their livelihood, they are much more powerful sanctions than any that exist under the criminal law.
It is not so long ago that when men pleaded guilty before the courts in Hull to being drunk on board ship or to committing some other offence on board ship, they were sent downstairs, having been fined; and the owner's representative paid the fine for them and the ship's runner took them back to sea, often to the same boat. That is a practice that a disciplinary committee can depart from, because it puts the responsibility where it should lie—upon the workpeople with whom the person concerned must work and whose living he endangers and upon the employers whose profitability, or take-home from the subsidy, he endangers.
The third principle is that when the authority of a skipper of a trawler or a master of a vessel is concerned with the safety of his ship it should be paramount; where it concerns an industrial matter it should be open to the techniques of industrial management. The

need for the skipper's authority is recognisable and understandable under the concept of the original Act but is not so relevant to the present day. The Bill should become the basis of a dignified legal contract of employment and not be the basis of legal bondage.
I add my weight to the comments which have been made by some of my hon. Friends about some of the provisions of the Bill. I think that Clause 27 is sufficient in itself. As I said in an interjection during the speech of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford, if the dereliction he described was sufficiently serious as to endanger the crew or the safety of the vessel I am with him 100 per cent. in seeking to punish the wrongdoer. If it becomes an industrial matter, however—if it becomes, say, a question of a man sleeping to on his watch, at a time when there is no possibility of danger—that should be an industrial matter. In that sense, Clause 27 covers the problems referred to by the hon. Gentleman. Clauses 28 to 31 and Clause 34 and associated Clauses spell out matters which I find reprehensible, and they should be deleted because Clause 27 is enough.
Those are the main disciplinary Clauses, except for Clause 90. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) that this Clause is a reasonable recognition of the situation in the fishing industry. However, it provides a safety net in that if either side of the industry finds that it cannot work the system, or if the President of the Board of Trade deems it necessary in the public good, he can intervene.
Basically, it should be left to the industry. If we can do this for the fishing industry, we should be able to do it in respect of merchant vessels which are on articles of home trade charter. The merchant service already has a recognisable disciplinary committee. Its present system of appeals and representation can be used. Basically I believe that the system should be extended to the whole of the merchant marine.
But I realise that specific problems attach to ships on long charter—for example, tankers, which may touch the United Kingdom only once in 18 months, bulk carriers and tramp steamers—in respect of which it is necessary to have the type of disciplinary arrangements set


out in the Bill. The National Union of Seamen recognised this and, since the union represents the men, we should accept it. What we have done for the fishermen, we can do for the seamen of the home ports.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington has already mentioned Clause 8 and has said that the men are in some ways worse off under the Bill than they were under the 1894 Act. Under the proposals the men are entitled to £30. I would like to see that raised to £100, as I am a pretty reasonable sort of fellow. I mean this quite seriously. Very often men come home with a great deal of money outstanding to them, and it is not too much to expect that they should be allowed to take £100 if there is £200 or £300 outstanding.
I think there is perhaps a slip in Clause 10(a), which refers to the Board of Trade making regulations—
… authorising deductions to be made from the wages due to a seaman … where a breach of contract is alleged against him …
The words—
where a breach of contract is alleged" is an extension to the Bill which was introduced in July. It is almost an "In Place of Strife" situation. I am certain that was not intended, and this should be looked at. This is sufficiently important to be mentioned now.
Clause 35 deals with appeals and disciplinary offences, and I want union representatives to have the right to attend.
I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle in urging that the words—
The Board of Trade may make regulations …
for the establishment of disciplinary committees should be substituted by the words—
The Board of Trade shall make regulations …".
There should then be a number of exemptions. It is always easier first to establish the principle and then to specify the exceptions. I, too, believe that there would be certain exceptions, but, because of the nature of this legislation, I would be happy if the President of the Board of Trade could be allowed a period of years in which to establish these committees, and provision made for him to name the date.
If there were to be disciplinary committees aboard the merchant ships there would be powerful grounds for having proper shipboard representation on trawlers. This is essential. The Holland-Martin Committee suggested experiments on this, but those experiments have not yet got off the ground. It is vital to the future of the Bill and to industrial relations that the men on trawlers should have a shipboard representative. When seamen were thinking about a liaison officer, it was said that there could not be two skippers on a ship. But people who talk in this manner do not pay sufficient attention to the experience of the Merchant Marine where, after a time, skippers and companies asked for the men to be appointed so as to prevent avoidable trouble. Also, because of the situation created under Clause 90, it will be far easier in terms of industrial discipline if it can be demonstrated that the interest of the men is represented on board.
We do not want a master to be dictated to on how he shall control his ship, how he should fish or when he should shoot the trawl and when he should haul. The functions of this person would be to tell the skipper that in his opinion it was dangerous to do something which was against the interests of safety. He should not be able to insist upon it but he should be able to say that a certain situation will be logged. Not long ago in Hull a skipper was fishing in bad weather, and the scuppers were blocked because the men were filleting and gutting and the skipper did not want to lose fish overboard. This was understandable, but during the very bad weather the men were worried about it. This is the kind of thing a shipboard representative can do. It would not take authority away from the skipper.

Captain W. Elliot: Can the hon. Member visualise such a man going to sea for 30 or 40 years?

Mr. McNamara: I am not thinking of the man being appointed for years. He would be a working member of the crew chosen, with the approval of the union, to be the crew's representative. He would be in a position to see that precautions to ensure safety were carried out.

Captain W. Elliot: That is what the captain is for.

Mr. McNamara: Although the hon. and gallant Member says that that is what the captain is for, the biggest criticism which men in the whole merchant service have is that the captain so often is judge, jury and executioner. This is not fair. This is the biggest crib of the lot.
I shall not be drawn on the question of drunkenness, but I think a great opportunity has been missed because the Bill does not get away from the myth that the skipper is the employer of the person who signs articles. We should get away from the theory that there is a difference between the skipper and the crew; they are all members of the company. They should be recognised as such, and there should not be this artificial distinction which is a hangover from the past.
When I interrupted the speech of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford, I referred to a case in which a representative of a company persuaded a man by bribing him with extra wages to go to sea. The man was taken on board, and the captain knew the state the man was in but did not have him looked after, although he was in that condition. The captain enabled him to get more liquor and he did great damage. This was the responsibility of the agent of the company, and the captain who is the agent of the company, and the company which allowed this situation to come about. The only person who took the blame was the poor half-drunken constituent of mine who in a pub was persuaded to go to sea against his wishes. That is the worst possible example of a situation under the old Act which I hope will soon disappear.
This must be a proud day for my right hon. Friend who introduced the Bill on Second Reading. It is a good Measure and it can be made even better if all the Amendments which I hope to see made in it are made in Committee. Then it will be a great Measure, a credit to our Government and party.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade for his opening speech. He very clearly outlined the position, and we are all grateful that we had that clear exposition.
I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). It cannot be said too often how much we in this movement owe to him for the great fight which he has put up over the years, not only for the seamen, but for all the working people of this country. But he will always be known in particular for his great work on behalf of the seamen and as someone who, at one time, began a union for the seamen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) and myself have close experience of the struggles of the seamen over the years to eliminate the 1894 Act. The fight has been going on for a long time. My memory does not go back as far as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington because I am not as old as he is, but I can remember the struggles, fights and strikes which have taken place in Liverpool and in the rest of the country since the end of the Second World War. In each of the seamen's struggles, official or unofficial, for better wages and conditions, the dispute has not gone on for more than a week without the workers demanding the abolition of the 1894 Act. It has been a natural demand since they suffered as a result of the Act and were put in the position of second class trade unionists by it because they were unable to act in the way in which the average trade unionist would act.
I remember the 1947 seamen's dispute I remember an individual who became a Labour councillor in Liverpool being imprisoned at that time. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle and I acted as arbitrators, if I can use that word. We were the people who sought a solution to the 1960 strike. We travelled not only to the Isle of Man but, it seemed to us, to just about every port in the country. We met both union officials and the seamen on strike. We discovered that most of the arguments were between the union officials and the seamen rather than the employers, although basically the dispute was about wages and conditions. At that time we learned how the seamen felt, particularly about the 1894 Act. They continuously demanded that something be done about it. During that fight we received guarantees from the Government that something would be done to amend it.
Those two strikes, which were both national strikes, were unofficial. We said to the workers in the industry, "Your job is not to struggle outside your trade union. If you are not satisfied with your trade union you must do something about improving it."
The third great strike, the 1966 strike, which could, and should, have been avoided, was a national strike. It was made an official strike by the trade union. It was one of the few official strikes which the National Union of Seamen has conducted. During that struggle, the demand automatically arose for the abolition, or at least changing, of the 1894 Act. We had the Pearson Report, from which the Bill arises. The Government have kept their pledge and we in the Labour Party should take it upon ourselves in our localities to explain to the people, particularly the seamen, their relatives and friends, that we are keeping our word. All honour should be given to the Government for this.
But it would be wrong to believe that there are no fears or hesitations about the Bill on the part of the N.U.S. The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) quoted from the September issue of the union's Journal. He naturally quoted the part which suited his argument and I do not criticise him for that. So he will forgive me if I quote the part which underlines the fears which the union has. The article was written by Mr. Hogarth, the general secretary. He said:
Unfortunately, the Bill reflects the belief that fines are still a necessary deterrent to indiscipline. Therefore, it proposes that the authority of the master to impose them shall be retained. This is enough to cause dismay, quite apart from the proclaimed intention to dramatically increase the sums of money which can be extracted in this way. We have always been opposed to both fines and the method of their imposition.
Mr. Hogarth then makes an important and telling point which I hope the Government will note. He says:
There is no evidence that monetary punishment prevents indiscipline, neither is there any evidence that good order on board ship would collapse in its absence. We have always felt that the facility with which fining may be carried out offers a convenient shield behind which inept shipboard supervision may safely shelter. In our view there is adequate machinery at the disposal of all interested parties

with which to deal with industrial indiscipline. Consequently, the authority to fine is both unnecessary and redundant.
That is a very clear statement of the position of the union and I hope that, in Committee, the point will be noted. This is why some of us take the view that Clauses 28, 29 and 30 could be dropped as being totally unnecessary. If they are not dropped, at least they should be drastically altered. Clause 30 could be interpreted to operate against workers who have gone on strike. But at the same time the Bill, for the first time and quite rightly, gives a seaman the right to go on strike, which they have never had before. There does appear to be a contradiction between Clause 30 and Clause 42, which gives that right to go on strike. Clause 30 says:
If a seaman employed in a ship registered in the United Kingdom—

(a) persistently and wilfully neglecting nis duty; or
(b) persistently and wilfully disobeys lawful commands; or
(c) combines with other seamen employed in that ship to disobey lawful commands …".
Those words could be interpreted, particularly by a master or employer, to argue that a combination of the workers to take some form of strike action, or industrial unrest, could be a form of indiscipline. I hope this matter will be cleared up and a clear interpretation given as to what precisely it means.
Like the seamen, I have for long argued that the men should have shipboard representation. In every dispute that has arisen the seamen have demanded a representative on board, rather like a shop steward in a factory. It is appreciated that there can be only one master of a ship, but the men want a representative who can discuss with the master any matters, such a discipline, that arise.
United States seamen have had a system of shipboard representation for many years. Their representatives on board have power to consult the master about any subject. I urge the Minister to appreciate that this whole question goes beyond the need for shipboard and shore-based disciplinary committees. I hope that there will be written into the Bill a provision to enable seamen to have the shipboard representation to which I have referred.
It has been rightly point out that there is a big turnover in the number of seamen entering and leaving the industry. In the past ports like Liverpool had high rates of unemployment. The life of the area was geared to the sea, and the majority of young workers were employed in the docks, at sea or in one of the service industries concerned with the docks. However, with the growth of alternative industries, such as the motor trade, people are attracted away from the traditional types of employment. Some do a few trips and then settle for a job ashore.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington said, we must ensure that seamen get decent wages, a proper career structure and the best possible living conditions. They should also be able to take their wives with them. Liverpool is still one of the biggest recruiting areas for seamen. I dare say that there are more Liverpool seamen in Southampton than there are Southampton seamen. A life at sea must be made attractive for those who are willing to make a career of it.
I fully understand why the National Union of Seamen is concerned about Asians. If the Asians received the same level of wages as British seamen, the British seamen would have no fears since it would be sensible for shipowners to employ British seamen. But the facts are that the Asian seamen are paid much less and their conditions are much worse. That is why the N.U.S. takes that particular attitude.
I conclude by saying that the Bill is a very great advance indeed. I am proud to be a member of the party which has brought it forward. It remains for us in Committee to iron out some of the problems and seek to improve the Bill in any way we can.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I confess that I have never been to sea except as a passenger, but I have certain qualifications to speak in this debate. First, I represent one of the major seaports in the world. Secondly, my father was connected with the sea for 51 years, which, although perhaps not a record, is a very long time.
Reference has been made to the wages and conditions of seamen in pre-war days.

I can remember exactly the wage of a seaman just prior to the war. His wages amounted to £7 a month. The turning point came when Ernest Bevin as Minister of Labour brought in a new deal for seamen. It was suddenly realised after about a year of the war that the Merchant Navy was important to the country.
The closest I ever got to going to sea was when I was a university student. I put an advertisement in a local paper during the vacation "University student requires vacation employment. Anything considered." I was visited by the captain of a pleasure yacht. He told me how much he would like a university student to go along as a member of the crew. He told me where we were going, and I got the impression that I would have a wonderful time. When I went down to see the craft, I asked where I was to sleep. But when he showed me the living quarters, I could not get off fast enough. The living accommodation was appalling.
I also remember before the war my father taking me as a young boy over a large passenger liner, and I saw some of the passenger accommodation. He then took me down to see the crew accommodation, where the conditions were shocking. This was in great contrast to a visit I made the other day to the QE2 when I was taken to see the new crew accommodation. There was just no comparison. However, there are still smaller ships—and certainly this applies to some of the pleasure yachts—in which the crew accommodation leaves a great deal to be desired. I hope that when the Minister makes regulations under Clause 20 dealing with crew accommodation he will so draw them to cover all the various types of ship which go to sea, including pleasure yachts as well as passenger liners, tankers etc.
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said about Clause 8(2). It refers to the amount payable to a seaman as wages due to him at the time of discharge, and says:
not less than £30 shall be paid to him at that time and the remainder within seven days of that time".
I would make a plea that it should be much more than £30. Whether it is set at £100, £60, £70 or £80, it would be


a very great advance on £30. A man who comes home from sea after a nine-months' voyage has a lot of money due to him. He will probably find that his wife has been waiting for him to come home to pay the rent or the gas bill or something like that. He may also want to go out and have a little celebration with the lads. Therefore, £30 is not enough in many cases.
I welcome the setting up of ships' disciplinary committees. The shipboard liaison officers, where they are in operation, are accepted and welcomed. I am sure that disciplinary committees will also be welcomed.
I hope that, concerning discipline, a distinction will be made between offences which affect the safety of the ship and other minor offences. I am not sure whether we can eliminate entirely Clauses 28, 29 and 30. If we eliminate them we may put ourselves into difficulties.
The Bill should have appeared a long time ago. However, I am very proud that this Government have brought it in at last.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: When we discuss ships, shipping and seamen the atmosphere in the House is more cordial than when we discuss aircraft and other more modern inventions. That may be because of the benign influence of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) for whom this must be a very proud day. I hope that this is by no means his swan song on the subject, or, indeed, on any subject.
The repeal Schedule in the Bill is probably bigger than any repeal Schedule in any Bill in living memory. When we look at the sheer weight and bulk of the Merchant Shipping Act and realise what we are repealing and see what we are putting in its place, the balance is remarkable. This shows in graphic form, I will not say the warnings, but the notice that some hon. Members have taken of the fact that we are leaving an enormous amount to subsequent regulations—almost the whole affair. This has advantages because they can be changed more easily. On the other hand, it has disadvantages because, when the regulations come before the House, they cannot be amended. They can only be rejected

or accepted. So this House is parting with a good deal of authority and opportunity by adopting this process.
However, what we are also doing, from the point of view of the constitutional procedures of this House, is perhaps even more interesting and better because in July, by accident rather than by design, a draft Bill in detailed terms was put before the House for discussion. It was not just a White Paper, a Green Paper, a Black Paper or anything like that; it was an actual Bill drafted in precise legal terms. Therefore, the House has had an opportunity for three or four months to consider the wording of the Bill which has become, as it were, a draft before the second Bill containing the Government's more concluded views on the subject has come before us. This was more by accident, because, without wishing to strike any discordant note, the Government produced the July Bill only as a result of promises given in the House. I do not believe that they intended—why should they?—to proceed with the Merchant Shipping Bill in the last Session. The result of this accident is an experience that I hope will spread into other walks of life in this House. I hope that in future the Government will produce draft Bills and give the House three or four months to think about them before producing their concluded views in a Mark II, instead of just a Mark I.
It is not true to say that the large merchant marine Shipping Act of 1894 has remained in that form since then. There have been six or seven major amending Acts—in 1906, in 1925, in 1932, in 1948, in 1949, and others. What is true is that Part II of the Bill has not been seriously attended to since 1894, and when one reads Part II and sees the sort of detailed and paternalistic regulations that were made under its provisions, one realises that it reads like another age. There are all those provisions about lodging houses, and how it is important to see that the poor seaman is protected against rapacious lodging house keepers, and "emigrant runners licences", licences to stop runners from seeking business from would-be emigrants. Paternalism run riot, it seems now, in an age which one sometimes thinks of as being an age entirely of laissez faire. Whereas today we are striking away the shackles of paternalism and recognising, as has been said


so often in this debate, that seamen neither want nor require in the modern world the sort of paternalistic protection which they received in 1894 and in previous Victorian Statutes.
They are fully-fledged citizens and trade unionists, and that cuts both ways. Not only do they have the rights, but also the duties and freedom from paternalistic protection of the type that I have been mentioning, and that brings me straight away to the vexed question of the Asians, which was dealt with in some detail in the previous legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) asked why it was necessary to provide that seamen could speak English, and I ventured to refer him to Section 12 of the 1906 Act which deals with the question of the employment of seamen who cannot speak English and who are primarily Lascars. What we must find out from the Government—we hope tonight, but if not tonight, then very soon—is what they propose to put in their regulations in place of the provisions of the previous Statutes relating to the employment of Asians in the merchant shipping of this country.
We appreciate that the Government are in a great difficulty. We appreciate that they have their own legislation on race relations to consider, and that they have the marked antipathy of the N.U.S. to continuing anything in the nature of second-class seamen. On the other hand, a great deal of the economy of the Merchant Navy depends on the Asians. The figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) were very significant. He said that there were about 50,000 United Kingdom seamen and 31,400 Asians employed in the Merchant Navy registered in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish to convey to the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It will help the House if the hon. Member speaks up.

Mr. Mahon: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish to convey to the House that Asian seamen are second-class seamen as such, because this nation owes a great deal to many of them, including the Goanese seamen.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: That is the last thing that I want to do. It was not my phrase, but somebody else's, that he did not want them to be treated as second-class seamen, and nor do I. I mention the matter only because it is an example of the vital importance of the regulations that are to be made under the Bill. It is these regulations, and not the Bill itself, which, in a sense, we ought to be discussing, because they will bring the main debate. However, we can compare, and it has been compared, the difference between the July and the November Bills.
The President of the Board of Trade has said that the November Bill lessens the harshness of the July Bill, and the changes were commented upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), who quite rightly said that Clause 27 has been somewhat whittled down in the four intervening months. In July, the provision was that a seaman employed on a ship registered in the United Kingdom
… who while on duty

(a) improperly leaves his post; or
(b) is asleep; or
(c) is under the influence of drink or drugs …"
should be liable to conviction. Paragraphs (a) and (b) have been excluded since July, and (c) has been qualified by the words
… to such an extent that his capacity to carry out his duties is impaired …'
There has been great attack on this Clause on the ground that fines do not keep discipline. This is an attitude which I think cannot be sustained. It is true, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) said, that laws only give the atmosphere: they do not give a positive solution. Of course they do not give a positive solution, but we must have them in this walk of life—as, unfortunately in many other walks of life—because there is a very small proportion of men to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft referred as "cowboys", by which I think he meant an undesirable and rather vagrant type of seaman who goes from place to place and who is not amenable to the sort of discipline which is much the best discipline, and that is the social condemnation of one's fellow workers. That is much the best discipline in all walks


of life, and not only at sea. But since men of this type are not amenable to it, one must have the fines and one must create the offences to deal with them—

Mr. McNamara: I think that the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) nodded his agreement with me when I said that if a person is not amenable there is no place for him in the industry.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: If such persons could be excluded from the industry it would be a great thing for everyone, but it is not possible to exclude all malefactors from any industry, including the fishing industry and the industry of the Merchant Navy.
The second point on which there is a distinction between the July and the November Bills was mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, and it relates to the fishing industry. It was positively written into the July Bill that those employed in the fishing industry who reported for duty under the influence of drink or drugs, or brought intoxicating liquor on board, or neglected or refused to join the ship or left the ship while it was proceeding to sea or about to proceed to sea should be guilty of an offence.
That provision has been removed, and we now do not know what, if anything, is to be put in its place, because all that is to be made the subject of regulations under Schedule 1. It rather looks as though nothing like that is to be put in its place, as there would otherwise be no point in removing it from the body of the Bill. I wonder whether the Government can lay their hand on their heart and say that it is not unduly risking the safety of such vessels, fishing vessels, to omit any such provisions under the new arrangements.
I put this question to the Minister of State: is it true that, at an earlier stage, the Board of Trade agreed positively with the industry that those matters should be made the subject of an offence? If it did so agree, what is its reason now for resiling from that agreement? Has the Board of Trade reasons other than mere consultation? Has it reasons in logic as well as reasons in industrial politics? If it has, we shall support it, because we have no desire unnecessarily to increase the harshness of any Measure. But we have

fears—my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) and Carshalton (Captain Elliot), who know something about life at sea, have expressed them—that seafaring practice will be endangered if there is to be a lessening of the sanctions against that sort of behaviour, which can be dangerous, particularly in a small ship in bad weather.
The third matter on which there is a variation, though I am not sure that it is much of a variation, is the question of the committees and discipline afloat. First, may I say something about the interesting and moving speech of the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner), who knows a good deal about this subject. He called attention to an interesting omission, as he thought, from the scheme set out by the President of the Board of Trade in his opening speech.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to four methods of enforcing behaviour at sea, and the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen was by no means sure whether those four methods included the new and successful "establishment scheme". I think that it probably was covered by the third of the right hon. Gentleman's four headings, but, whether it was or not, the hon. Gentleman raised an important point, saying that the operation of the establishment scheme, though generally satisfactory, was defective in that officers were worse off than ratings in the sense that ratings, under the establishment scheme, had the normal facility open to anyone charged with an offence, that they knew what the charge was in some detail and had an opportunity to answer it, whereas—surely, by an unexpected paradox—the officers had no such opportunity since the report was a secret report by the master. Since we are dealing with discipline and matters of fair hearing, perhaps the Minister of State will satisfy us on that point.
I come now to the even more vexed question of the experimental committees at sea, the shipboard committees. This brings in the whole philosophy much canvassed in the debate of whether it is better to be tried by one's fellow men or by the master or a magistrate. The general view of the House seemed to be that it is better to be tried by one's


fellow men. I have great doubt about that as a general principle of life—

Mr. Shinwell: indicated assent.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: —I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me. I have appeared in professional matters before professional bodies, and I find them much more severe and savage when dealing with their fellow practitioners than any judge.

Mr. Shinwell: To remove any misunderstanding, what I mean is this: I have much more sympathy with those who are doing the trying than with those who are being tried.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I would agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It was Bishop Colenso, much attacked by Mr. Gladstone for heresy, whom Mr. Gladstone tried to get before a synod of his fellow bishops. Colenso said that he would rather be tried by the laity of the Privy Council and refused to appear before a synod because he knew how savage one bishop could be to another. When one is considering the question of being tried by one's fellow men, one must not assume that it is in the offender's interest necessarily that he should be so tried. Voluntary committees, on shore or at sea will have only the enormous sanction of keeping a person from his job, not allowing him to go to sea, blacklisting him.
This is a very savage penalty and there is nothing in between, no rebuke or something of that sort. However if a man goes before a tribunal or someone such as a master, there is a gradation of penalties, some quite small. I know that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) does not think much of fines, but they are not quite as savage as blacklisting. That is a second advantage which, while not overwhelming ought to be considered.
These shipboard committees were much disliked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester and much liked by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) and others. Perhaps the Government have got it about right, in between the two. They have taken the provision to have experiments. Can the Minister of State say what the powers of these committees will be? In Paragraph 296 of the Pearson Report it

is clear that Pearson regarded these as essentially advisory. The report says:
On a balance of considerations we think the jurisdiction should, for the time being at any rate, remain vested in the master, but that the additional safeguards mentioned above should be introduced.
That referred to a mixed tribunal of assessors sitting with the master. We all agree with the view expressed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and others that the liaison officer is a good development. How right the hon. Member for Bootle was when he said that many seamen are unable to express themselves properly. There is a classic case of the sea, Herman Melville's "Billy Budd", which depends entirely upon that. Therefore, the liaison officer who can express something which the seamen cannot is essential.
There is all the difference in the world between being in a representative capacity, even an advisory capacity, and being in a judicial capacity. I hope the Minister of State will make clear whether these committees are to be fully judicial, and if they are, are they to be responsible not merely for the verdict but also for the sentence? Although I know it will all come out in regulations, it is such a revolution—and that is the word used by the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen—that we ought to know a little more about these committees. They have loomed very large in our debates.
This has been a very good evening and we must ungrudgingly congratulate the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done. We think there are several things that can be improved in Committee but if we enter Committee in the cooperative spirit that has been shown all round today we are in for a very agreeable time.

9.35 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): This has been an informed and instructive debate in which every speech—I have heard most of them—has made a real contribution.
It has been distinguished particularly by the powerful speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who spoke from the basis of a wealth of honourable experience and achievement in the reform of the industry. We are all delighted to see him here,


although he has been subject to a temporary indisposition. If he speaks so powerfuly when he is not 100 per cent. well, one wonders how he will speak in the Bill's later stages when he is fully recovered.
The Bill has been generally welcomed. First, this is because it is a genuine attempt to set out in statutory form the broad recommendation of the Pearson Committee, whose report was itself generally welcomed. Second, it is the fruit of considerable discussion with all parts of the industry, during which Ministers made constant and, I think, effective efforts to accommodate frequently conflicting views. No thoughtless undertakings were given but, there was very close consultation which, from time to time, possibly gave the impression that the attitude was more favourable than it actually was. While not all of the Bill is regarded as ideal, I think that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said in a striking speech, everyone will agree that it represents a tremendous step forward for the industry.
The industry is not only one of the oldest but also one of the most important in Britain. Our merchant fleet now totals slightly under 24 million gross tons, or rather more than 11 per cent. of the total world tonnage. At the end of October of this year it was manned by almost 100,000 British merchant seamen. I will come to the Asian point later, if I may.
The industry makes a major contribution to the economy and to the invisible earnings segment of the balance of payments. In addition, there are nearly 18,000 regularly employed fishermen in the United Kingdom, and the deep sea sector of the fishing fleet alone comprises some 550 vessels.
The immense contribution to the economy and to the character of the country made by the industry often is made under conditions of acute discomfort and even danger. It is vital that conditions of service in such an industry should be made as attractive and as just as possible.
As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said, to achieve this a great many antiquated provisions need first to be swept away. The Bill

does exactly that. Many of these provisions were unduly harsh, and they are now being jettisoned. Among them there was the fact that deserters were imprisoned or forcibly placed back on their ships, practically as they were in the days of the press gang. That is no longer the fact, of course, but it is taken out of the Statute by the Bill.
In addition, seamen will no longer be branded for life by adverse markings in their discharge books since such markings will no longer be made. Expenses for medical treatment will no longer in any circumstances be the liability of the seaman when abroad. Moreover, the Bill will sweep away outdated provisions which, while not being very harsh, are obsolescent. Seamen will no longer have to be engaged or discharged in the presence of a Government official, though he will be available in case of need.
A statute is needed which, in the words of the Pearson Report,
… should be designed to deal broadly with matters of principle and permanent policy, and to foster and not to inhibit future developments.
These developments not only include technological advances, changes in size and structure of vessels and the increasing sophistication of equipment. They also include the developing concept of the ordinary seaman as an increasingly trained technician, educated in responsibilities as well as rights.
It is a remarkable and significant fact that so large and increasing a proportion of the modern merchant fleet are officers. Of the figure of 100,000 British merchant seamen that I mentioned, 47,000 were officers. We can draw an important conclusion from this. It is that we are dealing with an industry—and here I strongly echo what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington about the future of the industry and the status of those employed in it—where technical qualification is increasingly important, and where the old rigid concept of hierarchy is giving place to a technical democracy.
The Bill reflects this fact in the disciplinary Clauses. It certainly does so in the Clauses relating to health and welfare, the arrangements for paying wages, and the regulations which will be introduced to organise qualification and certification. It is a Bill not only to liberalise


and humanise but also to modernise conditions of work on board ship, so that we can look forward not only to technical and technological progress but also to an increase in the status of every rating who takes part in the important work of this industry.
Further, we thought it essential that this reform should, as far as possible, be implemented by regulation. Hon. Members on both sides are well aware of the advantages and disadvantages of proceeding by regulation. The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) put the matter very fairly and succinctly. I see nothing to quarrel about with him on the question of constitutional principle.
But there are advantages. It adds flexibility. That was one of the main points made by the Pearson Committee. That is why the Bill is largely an enabling Bill. Under the present Merchant Shipping Acts, of which there have been a large number many regulations have been made. We propose to continue a practice which is not new in this field or many other industrial fields, but also to make statutory provision, in a special Clause, that there must be consultation with both sides of the industry before a regulation is drafted. Thereafter, as before, there is provision for regulations to be subject to the negative Resolution procedure, and in one case provision is made for regulations to be made by way of affirmative Resolution.
Some hon. Members have asked why this has been done. This arises in Schedule 1, which provides for making regulations concerning offences by fishermen. These would be of a kind which are covered for merchant seamen by Clauses 29, 30 and 31. We thought it right to make any such regulations subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure because, should they be made, they would introduce for fishermen offences similar to those which are regulated for seamen by the Clauses in the Bill. In that way the parliamentary consideration which is available in respect of the provisions concerning merchant seamen will be provided for in a somewhat different way for fishermen.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The point that we made is that if they are in the form of regulations they cannot be amended. The

right hon. Member must address his mind to that argument.

Mr. Roberts: I have done so. It is not quite true to say that they cannot be amended. The hon. Member has in mind the fact that if regulations do not meet the wishes of the House they must be totally withdrawn. But they may be totally withdrawn, amended in the light if what the House has said about them, and brought back. The hon. Member is quite fair about this. There is a difference in that in dealing with Clauses amendments can be made progressively in Committee, whereas in dealing with regulations there must be a total presentation and, if necessary, a total withdrawal, and then, I suggest, a fresh presentation in the light of the Amendments which the House has made clear it wants to see made.

Mr. Hay: Could the right hon. Gentleman explain the difference between adopting the affirmative procedure and the negative procedure, if the Government's intention is to give the House the opportunity of suggesting Amendments? Does not the negative procedure give exactly the same opportunity as the affirmative procedure?

Mr. Roberts: There is a difference. The affirmative Resolution procedure makes it more certain that there will be opportunityfor discussion in the House. I grant that it is not a difference in principle, but in practicality it is well worth having.
A number of hon. Members have raised points on the Clauses relating to discipline and good order on board ship. Some have expressed reservations on these sections of the Bill. I expect that in Committee we shall have extensive and responsible discussions on these and other Clauses. These provisions are designed to protect safety. They represent the consensus beyond which it would be dangerous to go, at least at present. Compared with existing provisions for discipline they are considerably less harsh. For instance, they restrict the penalty of imprisonment to the truly serious offences, and make it possible for the less serious offences to be dealt with on the spot, with proper safeguards against the substitution of authoritarianism for authority and proper provision for effective appeal. If these provisions can be improved in Committee, we shall all be prepared to listen


and to take part in constructive discussion.
I am tempted at this stage to deal with Clauses 27 and 28, but they raise points which should properly be dealt with in Committee. There has been some confusion about the purpose of Clauses 27 and 28. We can clarify it in Committee. The essential point is that Clause 27 deals with the most serious offences, for which, rightly, stiff penalties are proposed, while Clause 28 deals with a condition—that of drunkenness on duty—which is potentially dangerous to the ship and its crew.
The hon. and learned Member for Darwen asked why this version of the Bill is different from the July version. He suggested that the Government had yielded to pressure. There are two answers to that. First, paragraphs 252 and 253 of the Holland-Martin Report make a very strong argument for our doing in the Schedule what we propose to do. They are lengthy paragraphs which I cannot even paraphrase at this time of night.
Secondly, the hon. and learned Gentleman somewhat controverted his argument in a way most agreeable to me. I wish that we had two bites at every statutory cherry. That is an ideal situation which the House and Ministers would like to achieve—that the Government lay before the House not only a White Paper but a first draft and then, after two or three months, there is another draft. Nothing concentrates the drafting mind so wonderfully as a draft which might well be adopted by the House, to paraphrase Dr. Johnson in another connection.
I regret that before rising to speak I did not have time to examine the question of Asian seamen. While I will be prepared to say more during later stages of the Bill about this subject, in the meantime I assure the House that nothing appears in the Measure specifically for Asian seamen. The protection of the full provisions of the Bill are applicable to all seamen. There is absolutely no intention to create first-class and second-class seamen.
In the time available to me I am unable to mention every point of substance made in what has been a compendious and worth-while debate. The matters which I am perforce obliged to omit will inevitably be raised in Committee. Several

hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) and the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby)—it is right that in a debate of this kind we should range around the compass—asked me to indicate the content of the regulations, and the matter was dealt with in another way by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen.
In Committee we will do our best to give broad indications of the content of the main regulations. It will not be possible to produce draft regulations at that stage, though I appreciate that that was not the intention of the question. There are several months' work to be done and hon. Members will wish to see full consultation taking place with both sides of industry before the regulations are drafted. In the meantime, I will do my best in Committee to give some indication of what the regulations will cover.
A related point, model crew agreements, was raised. This matter had occurred to me in a personal capacity, though not Ministerially. I have, therefore, been looking into it. Crew agreements will be worked out first within the industry, both sides being in consultation with the Board of Trade, and then they will be approved by the Board of Trade. Whether we can produce a model or a number of models I cannot say, but this question can be pursued in Committee.
A number of hon. Members, among them my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) raised interesting topics. It was suggested, for example, that the £30 minimum payment on discharge was on the low side. This, too, can be considered further in Committee, though there are certain difficulties attached to putting the figure at too high a level. They have no doubt occurred to some of my hon. Friends.
An ingredient of the Bill which attracted the attention of many hon. Members is the composition of ships' disciplinary committees. Such committees might consist of the master as chairman, two officers and two ratings. The Board of Trade will consider any proposals for the composition of disciplinary committees that might be worked out by the National Maritime Board. Whether


there should be an experimental number of ships subject to this provision and whether we should broaden the base in this matter might also be matters for the National Maritime Board. It of course is an effective body on which both sides of the industry are represented and a body which in the past has effectively tackled a number of questions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle and also the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) raised the questions of how far and how fast disciplinary committees should be set up. The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) very much doubted whether they should be set up. These are the two ends of the spectrum. I think the balance of argument in the House tonight has been in favour of as rapid as practicable and acceptable an expansion of this idea of a ship disciplinary committee.
The hon. and learned Member for Darwen asked what the powers would be. These will be contained in regulations, but the hon. and learned Member was right to ask for a preview. We regard them as partly or fully according to the circumstances taking up the powers of discipline, of deciding on on board penalties, subject of course to appeal on shore.

Mr. Horner: This means that the master would have to surrender his disciplinary powers, and this would entail looking at the Clauses in the Bill.

Mr. Roberts: Partly or wholly according to the circumstances, I stress that this is not something one would do at one fell swoop in regard to the whole industry. Clause 36 enables us to approach this somewhat revolutionary proposal and put it into effect slowly or quickly according to the general acceptability of this arrangement by the industry.
An important point was raised by a number of hon. Members in relation to discipline about the role of the accused's friend, the friend or counsellor from among the crew who would attend the accused when he appears before the master or before a disciplinary committee, and the rights which such a friend should have. At the moment his rights of speaking are somewhat circumscribed. I am for the fullest rights possible for this friend to speak on behalf of the accused.
Standards of education have increased among seamen over the past 30 years or more, but there are still a great many ratings who find it extremely difficult to explain to a superior officer or even to a committee composed partly of their own friends exactly what the circumstances were and what their defence would be. Therefore I incline very much to listening favourably in committee to a suggestion that the rights of a friend to speak should be as full as possible.
I must apologise to the House that I have not by any means covered all the points which have been made. I do not think I have left a single point out which cannot be adequately tackled in Committee. I wish to say how proud I am to be associated with my right hon. Friend in presenting this Bill, and I heartily commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Insolvency Services (Accounting and Investment) Bill and on the Valuation for Rating (Scotland) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

MERCHANT SHIPPING [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make fresh provision in place of certain enactments relating to merchant ships and seamen and to repeal some of those enactments without replacement and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade under that Act and of the remuneration of wreck commissioners and assessors appointed under that Act; and

(2) the payment of any sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Goronwy Roberts.]

INSOLVENCY SERVICES (ACCOUNTING AND INVESTMENT) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

VALUATION FOR RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will note that I have selected all the Amendments on the Notice Paper.

Clause 1

PARTIAL DERATING OF BUILDINGS USED FOR LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION

10.2 p.m.

Mr. James Davidson: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page, 1, line 15, at end insert:
(2) Any order made under the foregoing subsection in respect of lands and heritages which do not comply with the Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock approved by the Secretary of State shall specify a percentage to be deducted from the net annual value thereof of not less than 50 per cent.
(3) Any order made under subsection (1) of this section in respect of lands and heritages to which the provisions of the foregoing subsection do not apply shall specify a percentage to be deducted from the net annual value thereof of not less than 95 per cent.
I much regret that I was unable to be present during the deliberations in Committee on this Bill, but I have read the OFFICIAL REPORTS from cover to cover and I know precisely what took place. In the opening debate dealing with the principle of the Bill, the Minister completely failed to satisfy me, and I believe other Members of the Scottish Grand Committee, on at least three important points. The first point is that there is no attempt at definition of intensive livestock buildings in the Bill. I believe that the Secretary of State's Amendments following mine will merely confuse the issue and present very considerable problems to the courts.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman must leave those Amendments to the next debate.

Mr. Davidson: Secondly, I believe that a phrase used by the Minister in the debate will add to the confusion which I am attempting to clarify by this Amendment. He said:

This Bill was introduced for the narrow and specific purpose of giving some measure of derating, analogous to that enjoyed by industry, of 50 per cent.—to apply to buildings used for the keeping and breeding of livestock—in other words, for intensive agriculture production."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 25th November, 1969; c. 58.]
In this phrase the Minister confused buildings for livestock breeding and the keeping of livestock with intensive livestock buildings. My Amendment attempts to resolve this confusion.
Another major complaint, about which he did nothing to answer is that there is no specified percentage mentioned in the Bill. The Bill simply mentions a percentage of that value
as may be specified in the order …
although I am aware that the Minister went on to mention the figure of 50 per cent. The third objection I have to the Bill is that although the intentions of the 1956 Act seem absolutely clear to me, namely that no agricultural buildings were intended to be rated, unfortunately assessors throughout Scotland who have been waiting for Government action over the rating of intensive livestock buildings, seeing that this Bill containing no definition of such buildings, will regard it as a green light to rate every livestock building in Scotland, from the intensive hen battery which may stand on a quarter acre of concrete on the outskirts of a town, to the traditional cattle court in a small farm somewhere up in the remote uplands of Scotland.
In terms of the Bill unamended, both these types of livestock buildings are equally vulnerable to the assessor's random selection. Both are part of the nation's agricultural economy. Surely the important point is to differentiate between the acceptable and the unacceptable as applied to livestock housing standards and to provide incentives to improve both types of building which I have mentioned—to quote from the Bill:
buildings used solely for the purpose of the keeping or breeding of livestock.
According to the intention of the 1956 Act, neither in my view should be eligible for rating.
The Amendment attempts to deal with these three specific objections and at the same time to give some force and incentive to the Codes of Recommendations


for the Welfare of Livestock recently put forward by the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture and approved by the House.
The Amendment makes a clear distinction between livestock buildings which do comply and those which do not comply with the recommendations. It assumes that those buildings which do not comply are something in the nature of factories as opposed to straightforward agricultural buildings, and it proposes that they should be derated by not less than 50 per cent, this being specifically written into the Amendment. On the other hand, it assumes that livestock buildings which comply with the codes are agricultural buildings within the terms of the 1956 Act which should not be put on the valuation role at all.
Rather than risk leaving the matter open to the discretion of the assessors, subsection (3) of the Amendment would ensure that, even if they were put on the valuation roll, they would be subject to not less than 95 per cent, derating. In these circumstances it can be assumed that assessors will only take the trouble to assess and put on the valuation roll those buildings which do not comply with the codes. I believe that this answers the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) who said in Committee:
I am bound to say that I would support the codes more than I would support the Brambell conception, but even there we have something entirely non-statutory, and I just do not follow how we can effectively link these two together."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 25th November, 1969; c. 49.]
What I have to say in proposing the Amendment indicates how they could effectively be linked together.
Presumably, if an assessor attempted to rate a non-intensive building at 50 per cent., the National Farmers' Union could take a test case to the courts to decide whether or not the building concerned complied with the codes. If there were still any doubt the fault would lie in the wording of the codes and not in the Bill as amended. Many of us would prefer to see 100 per cent, derating of livestock buildings which comply with the codes, but it proved impossible to table an Amendment on these lines be-

cause of the Short Title of the Bill which specifically mentioned partial derating.
The purpose of the Amendment is to provide an answer to three major objections which I put to the Minister on Second Reading, namely his failure to define intensive livestock buildings, his failure to specify any percentage derating, although he has mentioned 50 per cent., which is why I have included that figure in subsection (2) of the Amendment to accommodate him. Personally, I should prefer to see livestock buildings which do not comply with the codes fully rated.
Finally, it is an attempt to underline the danger of assessors putting on the valuation roll every livestock building throughout the length and breadth of Scotland and discourage them from doing so in the case of traditional livestock buildings.
I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment. If he does not, he will indicate his failure to appreciate that agriculture's special position stems directly from the Government's adherence to a cheap food policy and has nothing to do with the "gifts to farmers" theory which is so popular with certain hon. Members opposite. If a cheap food policy is to be pursued, then derating of agricultural buildings by more than the industrial rate of 50 per cent. is essential. I should, of course, declare my interest as a farmer.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) put forward about four main objections to the handling of the Bill in Committee and the failure to put in certain points. He has tried to deal with all of them in an Amendment which, in my innocence, I thought was mainly concerned with introducing humane codes of behaviour.
The hon. Gentleman's first point concerned the failure to define. We were all warned in advance of the difficulties of defining intensive livestock. I was blamed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) for not defining it. At the same time, he assured me that I would fall flat on my face if I tried to do so. This is not a matter which lends itself to definition. Therefore, we tried not to introduce a new


concept of intensive livestock rearing into rating. We tried to stick to the traditional definition where 100 per cent. derating took place. But new kinds of agriculture which did not, according to assessors, fall within this definition did not get the analogous benefit of 50 per cent, industrial derating as industry did in Scotland. Therefore, we did not try to remove the anomaly. We tried to lessen its effects by bringing in 50 per cent, derating for agricultural buildings and heritages which were entered on the valuation roll.
I do not think that I can try to answer the point that the intention in the 1956 Act was to have comprehensive derating by tying it to welfare definitions such as this. They have little place in assessment, although they may be valuable in themselves. We should try to ensure that the codes are applied, but not attached to rating.
It is a statutory offence to cause distress to animals. The code spells out good conduct and behaviour which may be used in evidence if the statutory offence of causing injury to livestock is raised. This aspect is, to an extent, covered.
What the hon. Gentleman wants to do is to penalise through rating the person who does not behave well. But we have introduced a Measure to penalise the person who does not behave well. It is a most illiberal action to bring in this other point. Should we double the rates of someone who drives through traffic lights? There is a statutory penalty for such an offence; the man is fined according to the traffic Acts. He is not fined again under a rating Act. To fine him again would be rather illiberal.
The other major point put forward was that the assessors would now extend their assessments. But we have not altered the definitions. We have not altered the law at all in this respect. The assessors must still interpret the law as it stands. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the assessors might say, "We may as well assess this man because he will pay only 50 per cent. anyway". This is a bit of an indictment of the independent judgment of the assessors, whose job is to interpret the law. We have not altered the definitions by which they must interpret the law. We have lessened the impact if they decide that the matter

falls within the law from a rating point of view.
I accept what the hon. Gentleman has to say about the welfare aspects but I do not think that we can achieve the objective in the way he proposes. I believe that the way to do it is through the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 which has, after all, not long been passed. I must, therefore, reject the Amendment.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. James Davidson: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman rejects the Amendment. I think he is wrong to suggest that the provision of incentives to better standards of livestock husbandry is in any way illiberal. I would say that it is precisely the opposite and that perhaps rating could be used more often to provide incentives.
The hon. Gentleman said that I was indicting the judgment of the assessors. That was inapt. There is no question that the Bill fails to redefine the difference between intensive livestock buildings and ordinary agricultural buildings as defined in the 1956 Act. I therefore have a genuine fear that assessors will take this as the green light to assess every livestock building in Scotland. There is nothing to stop them from doing it. I regret that he will not accept the Amendment and I do not intend to withdraw it.

Question put and negatived.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Buchan—Amendment No. 13.

Mr. Buchan: Should it not be Amendment No. 2, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: We take the Amendments as they appear on the Order Paper. That is the usual practice.

Mr. Buchan: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 1, after "heritages" insert:
'being lands and heritages the whole of which is required, or but for this subsection would be required, to be entered in the valuation roll'.
This is one of a series of Amendments intended to clarify—as I believe, after careful perusal, they do—the effect of the definition in the Bill of which buildings will be eligible for partial derating.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to take at the same time


the following two Amendments standing in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland—No. 2, in page 2, line 13, at end insert:
(5)Any reference in the last foregoing subsection to a livestock production part of lands and heritages shall be construed as a reference to a part of lands and heritages—

(a) which consists of one or more buildings or one or more parts of buildings (not being in any case a building or part of a building used as a dwelling-house) used solely for the purpose of the keeping or breeding of livestock, and,
(b) which if it consisted of a building or buildings in separate occupation would be lands and heritages which would be required to be entered in the valuation roll.
(6)Without prejudice to subsection (4) of this section, a building or part of a building shall not be precluded from being treated, for the purposes of this Act, as a building or part of a building used solely for the purpose of the keeping or breeding of livestock merely because the building or part is to some extent or from time to time used in such a manner that, if it were a building wholly or at all times used in that manner, it would be an agricultural building within the meaning of section 7 of the Act of 1956.
and No. 3, in page 2, line 38, leave out from 'thereof' to end of line 8 on page 3 and insert:
(4) Any reference in this Act to a building or part of a building used solely for the purpose of the keeping or breeding of livestock shall be construed as including a reference to a building or part of a building occupied together with such building or part and used solely in connection with the use of such building or part and to any land so occupied and used.

Mr. Buchan: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that would be useful.
In Committee, I promised to look at this. We made attempts then to try to redefine the Bill as it stood but ran into certain difficulties. This is an attempt to make it more clear and ensure that exceptions are not being made. As I promised, I have given the matter further examination. We had useful discussions with the N.F.U. and the Scottish Committee of the Chartered Land Agents Society. It emerged from these that it would be advisable to make clear in the context of the Bill that Clause 1(4) and the related provisions in the two subsections which are incorporated in Amendment No. 2 apply only to buildings which are not eligible for full agricultural derating through failure to pass the

test prescribed by the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I think that it is going to be extremely difficult to separate Amendment No. 13 from Amendment No. 2 because, rightly or wrongly—I do not say I understand it as it is a complex position—there is surely a close link between them. It might have been better to have taken them all together.

Mr. Buchan: I am willing to do so it it helps the hon. Gentleman. It is a complex matter. If you would so rule, Mr. Speaker, I would be willing to do it.

Mr. Speaker: I have no objection if the House consents.

Mr. Buchan: They do all go together. Clause 1(4) was designed to extend the partial derating provided by the Order to cases where the building is used in part for intensive livestock purposes and in part for other purposes. This object is secured by providing that the livestock production part and the remainder are to be treated as distinct units of valuation. It might and could be argued that Clause 1(4), as drafted, would allow a building used for non-intensive purposes to be separated in the valuation process from the other buildings and lands comprised in the unit. In other words, if we had not included this Amendment, a byre, for instance, might by definition have fallen within it. We want to make clear that it is only where partial derating would in any case apply that the effects of the subsection will be introduced. I accept that there would be only a few cases, but this led to some anxiety. I think that we have now clarified the situation.
Amendment No. 2, which gave most trouble to hon. Members, is a sequel to the promise that I gave in Committee to consider the implications of the way that the Bill presently defines the buildings which are to qualify for partial derating. It seemed to me, not in following the discussions in Committee, but considering the worry which hon. Members had about the kind of examples which were brought forward, that we may have been unduly restrictive on one point. While provision is made in Clause 1(4) for buildings which are used identifiably in part for livestock purposes, and in the remainder for other


purposes, there is at present no provision for the case where the whole of the building is used, whether concurrently—two uses at the same time, or successively—at different times of the year for livestock and other agricultural purposes. These cases are not common, but we want to make sure that they would be covered by partial derating. This is the basic point in this subsection.
The new subsection (6), incorporated in the Amendment, will rectify this anomaly. It provides that any building used in the way that I have described will be treated, for purposes of the Act, as if it was a building used solely for livestock purposes. In other words, if it falls within it, it will qualify for the partial derating provided by the Order.
The new subsection (5) of Clause 1, incorporated in the Amendment, is simply the existing subsection (4) of Clause 2 with some minor and consequential Amendments.

Mr. Stodart: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will feel it is reasonable for me, provided I am brief about it, to comment on the difficulty with which the Opposition have been confronted by this Amendment in particular. The Minister was kind enough to warn me of the Government's intentions last Thursday and to let me have the Amendments in draft, other than Amendment No. 13, which I saw for the first time this morning. On this extremely complicated piece of legislation, short though it is, I should have liked more time for consideration and consultation with those more expert than I in rating.
Dealing, first, with the new subsection (5), that is merely a transfer of what was previously subsection (4) of Clause 2. There are alterations in the text and I hope I am not taking them too lightly when I describe them as drafting. We now have the words "shall be construed" instead of "consisting", "which consists" instead of "consisting" and "consisted" instead of "were". It seems that there is no great significance there, although we have learned of the danger of putting in words which have been given a different interpretation by the courts from what we imagined they would be.
In Committee we made no comment on Clause 2. I think that that was partly because we were so baffled by the Gov-

ernment's obtuseness about Clause 1, but I believe that to achieve the 50 per cent, concession which the Government have done their best to extend by putting down these Amendments the additional work on assessors to reach this goal will be colossal. In connection with subsection (5), may I take a typical block of adjoining buildings in a typical farm steading. There might be an implement shed at one end, a garage in the middle in which the farmer keeps his car, and a broiler house at the other end, a perfectly reasonable set up.
At the moment, the assessor would enter the whole lot in the roll, in that the block of buildings is not used solely in connection with the land which is also occupied. Because of this change, he will have to make three separate assessments. He will enter the garage in full, and it will be rated for 100 per cent. For the broiler house—and for this I am relying on court judgments—which is not being used solely in connection with the land, there will be a mark put against it, and it will get a 50 per cent, concession. The implement shed will probably not be entered at all unless the farmer is generous enough to use any of his tackle to help out a neighbour who has got behind with his work, in which case that implement shed will not be used solely in connection with the land which the farmer is occupying, and thus it will be entered in the roll and be assessed in full. My impression—and perhaps the Minister will assure me or correct me about this—of Amendment No. 13 is that it meets some of the worries which I had noted before the Amendment was tabled.
To return for a moment to subsection (5), I wonder whether the Minister can explain why paragraph (b) is there at all. Is it really necessary, and what good does it do? Because of its presence there, may it not encourage the assessor to enter certain subjects on the roll which hitherto have been fully derated? In terms of subsection (5)(b) a livestock production part—which is a pretty hideous piece of agricultural jargon in itself of lands and heritages—is to be construed as a part which, if it consisted of a building, or buildings, in separate occupation, would be lands and heritages which would have to be entered in the valuation roll. Many agricultural buildings which at the moment are derated because they are


occupied solely in connection with agricultural operations on the land with which they are occupied would have to be entered on the roll if they were in separate occupation.
10.30 p.m.
To give one example, if I were to let one of my cattle courts to a neighbour for the winter—and this is not uncommon in arable farming—it would be rated, because it would be occupied by someone other than the occupier of the land with which it was held. I get the impression that Clause 1(1), which indicates that the Bill applies only to buildings which already fall to be entered in terms of the 1956 Act as it has been interpreted by the courts, will safeguard the position, and the new Amendment No. 13 makes the position even safer. But perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to give me that assurance and say whether I am right or not when he replies.
I think a great deal of the substance of the Government's proposals is to be found in the proposed new subsection (6). As I have said already, the hon. Gentleman was good enough to let me have a rough draft of his Amendments together with a short explanatory note. That explanatory note about subsection (6) says:
Subsection (6) ensures that the intensive livestock farmer will not fall between the stools of 50 per cent, derating and full agricultural derating in the very rare case where the whole of the intensive livestock building is used concurrently or successively for intensive livestock and other agricultural purposes.
With respect, that explanatory paragraph is about 100 per cent. too optimistic. One thing that I am quite sure it does not do is to ensure anything of the kind, if the word "ensures" means what I think it will. I am frankly appalled by the introduction into legislation, which has already led to so much trouble in the courts, of the words in this new subsection "to some extent or from time to time". I can see, and the hon. Gentleman can see—in fact, I think everybody can see—what the Government intend. They intend to meet the point which I made in Committee about the granary which would fall between two stools as it contained home-grown food at one end

and imported food at the other end and, therefore, was neither fish nor fowl. They intend to counter the situation created by a judgment on an implement shed which was used during the summer months for housing broilers, and the implements in the dry weather were put outside, and it was rated 100 per cent.
These are now intended to qualify for the 50 per cent, concession if they are entered on the roll. But why on earth "to some extent or from time to time"? If the Government are determined that buildings used in the way described qualify for a concession, why not say either "ever" or "at any time" and be entirely specific? It is so easy to foresee cases which will go to the courts on the initiative of the assessors asking the courts to define what "to some extent or from time to time" means. It is so easy to foresee cases about the status of one building which is used for what I might describe as a dubious purpose in the assessment world for three weeks out of the year, as opposed to anotther which is used for three months. We might very well get the courts deciding that one was being used in the way the court thought reasonable, and the other would fail and would cost a farmer a considerable amount of money.
I really would have thought, after all the cases which have been heard and all the judgments given, and remembering that a case is going before another place in two or three days' time, a case which may very possibly prove to be a test case, the judgment in which may be quoted all over the place, that the Government might have held their hand till that judgment had been given. To put in words like "from time to time" and "to some extent" when the courts have found in them meanings materially different from those we here intended, and given findings which have cost the unfortunate occupier several hundreds of pounds, because of "in connection with" and "for the purpose of", I think is being very reckless indeed. Despite warnings sounded by Lord Denning and quoted by myself in Committee, the Government have not only retained that wretched word "solely" and reintroduced "for the purposes of" and "in connection with", but they have gone quite haywire by using words of which there are as many different meanings as anyone cares to give them.
So far as Amendment No. 3 goes, its main effect, I think, is to make it clear, by using "building or part of a building" that the intention is that buildings used for the purpose of livestock production but not actually housing the livestock—for example, a grain store or tool shed—should qualify for the same sort of relief. That means, if I may give a simple example, that if one has a building containing a hammer mill which is mixing feed for another building which is used for the keeping or breeding of livestock, that building containing the hammer mill will get the same concession as the building used for the keeping or breeding of livestock.
I just ask whether the hon. Gentleman has considered this, which I think is a possibility. Suppose that hammer mill were to supply not only feedingstuffs to the buildings in which the livestock are being kept or bred but also to supply a lot of ground up barley to feed to pigs which are kept in huts outside the buildings altogether but on the same farm. That is a very common agriculture practice as well. Would not the new subsection show another anomaly—that if the hammer mill were to do that, it would not qualify as a building supplying the other building in which the livestock are kept or bred?
I may be quite wrong about this, but there have been such extraordinary decisions given in the courts about this that I felt it only right to put it to the hon. Gentleman, and he may perhaps have a few moments to think about it and reply.

Mr. Buchan: I think the hon. Gentleman should be aware that we considered the complexities of this and discussed them with the Assessors' Association. The assessors are not worried about the kind of problem which the hon. Gentleman seems to find in subsection (5) and subsection (6). Subsection (5) is serving a useful function merely by describing the type of use to which the livestock part is put.
It was subsection (6) the hon. Gentleman was concerned with. I am sorry he does not like the words "from time to time" and "to some extent". I am rather fond of them. I myself thought they were the clearest used in the whole Amendment, and if they are clear to

some of us they will certainly be clear to assessors.
This is a very real problem, and one that was not sufficiently considered by hon. Members opposite in Committee. It is especially a problem in the hon. Gentleman's own area, in the east and north-east, where buildings are used for part of the year for livestock and for part of the year for other agricultural purposes, and so used pretty continuously. One could have left it as "to some extent", but it was felt necessary to give the successive aspect, and this we think we have done with the phrase "from time to time". It is therefore clear to us and to the assessors, and I am sorry that it is not clear to the hon Member for Edinburgh, West. The Amendment serves its purpose, which is to tighten up the provision for cases falling otherwise between two stools.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to Amendment No. 3, which I do not think I have yet moved—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I understood that we were taking the three Government Amendments together.

Mr. Buchan: In that case, I would say that the third Amendment has the same purpose of seeking to tighten up the definition.
The hon. Gentleman said that he was specially worried about whether ancillary buildings meant only those buildings attached, such as a granary or included other buildings which he envisaged as being well spread out over the farm, and used for ancillary purposes.

Mr. Stodart: The hon. Gentleman has not referred to my point in regard to Amendment No. 3, and I do not intend to press him for an answer now, because it is a complicated subject. My point was about the hammer mill within the granary which was used to prepare feed for pigs outside. That seems to be a perfectly reasonable possibility. Perhaps he will take advice on that aspect, because it is one that the Government might well consider.

Mr. David Steel: A moment ago the Joint Under-Secretary said that the phrase"
… to some extent or from time to time.…


is the clearest part of the Amendment. He is right, but in my view he thereby condemns the entire Amendment. I received a representation only the other day from a branch of the National Farmers' Union in my constituency to the effect that even with the help of a solicitor they had not been able to understand part of the Agriculture Bill. We should not allow this Amendment to pass without a protest at this legislative gobbledygook which faces farmers when they have to work regulations which we approve.
Subsection (6) of Amendment No. 2 reads:
(6) Without prejudice to subsection (4) of this section, a building or part of a building shall not be precluded from being treated, for the purposes of this Act, as a building or part of a building used solely for the purpose of the keeping or breeding of livestock merely because the building or part is to some extent or from time to time used in such a manner that, if it were a building wholly or at all times used in that manner, it would be an agricultural building within the meaning of section 7 of the Act of 1956.
I protest. The Under-Secretary has a justifiable reputation for sanity in the use of the English language, and I do not think that such wording should be thrust upon us.
It is revealing that the Under-Secretary should have thought it necessary to send to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), who speaks for his party, an explanatory note. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West needs an explanatory note and still complains about the drafting to what extent will it be of any help to farmers?

10.45 p.m.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I regret that, because I was serving on the Standing Committee of the Agriculture Bill, I was not able to be present during all the Committee's deliberations on this Bill. However, I have read the Committee proceedings carefully and I find that Clause 2 was passed without any discussion. Presumably hon. Members were satisfied with the Clause as it stood. One must assume, therefore, that at that stage the Government were satisfied with the Clause as drafted. The Joint Under-Secretary of State said tonight that subsequently there were

consultations with the N.F.U. and possibly with the Assessors' Association. Something must have prompted the Government to take this action.
On 11th November, the Joint Under-Secretary of State explained the Clause quite lucidly. Referring to subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 2, he said:
Clause 2(3) sets out what is meant by a building. It is to be interpreted as including any pertinents of a building".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 11th November, 1969; c. 7.]
"Pertinents" is a Scottish legal term and as such is relevant to this Bill. The Oxford Dictionary defines pertinents as
something which pertains, belongs or forms an appendage to another: a minor property, appurtenance. Law, chiefly Scottish, anything belonging to an estate".
It goes on to quote the Scottish Antiquarian Society, 1900, volume XIV, page 217, which refers to a document dated 1396 which has great relevance to the Bill and particularly to my constituency. This quotation says:
A1 his landys of the Murtclauch lyand within the schyrradome of Banfe with the pertinents".
What is the reason for the Amendment? Are not the words "pertinent thereof" sufficiently good? What has made the Government have second thoughts? The Joint Under-Secretary said that the Amendments look complex. That is the under-statement of the year. He attempted as best he could to make them clearer. They are as clear as mud to me. I have spent a good many hours this evening trying to master them.
I do not pretend to have a vast intellect. But it is not me alone who has to understand what it means. All the farmers in Scotland have to. What the Government have done in these Amendments is juggle with words. They have juggled them from one subsection to another and from one Clause to another, making confusion doubly confounded.
I welcome the alteration being made in Clause 2(4) by substituting the words "in connection with" for "for the purpose of". However, I should like to know why it has not been done in Clause 1(6). If it is relevant in one Clause, it is relevant in another.
I say again that the Government are making the Bill even more complex than


it was before. I suggest that the Secretary of State should ask his officials in St. Andrew's House to publish an explanatory memorandum, with a view to assisting farmers to understand what the Bill means.

Mr. Buchan: I think that the general purport and purpose of the Amendments are understood. I accept the point about the complexity of the wording, but, despite the comments of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), we are not writing a sonnet. We are trying to make as tight as possible the kinds of definitions which will guide assessors to the right assessments. I recognise their difficulty.
Explanatory notes would be very helpful. However, this difficulty has not been found in the headquarters of the N.F.U. The need for tight writing and legalistic phrasing is understood. The same is true of much legislation which we all spend a great deal of time trying to write in simpler forms, and it is not always possible.
We have taken careful note of what was said in Committee, which was the proper democratic procedure. We have not tabled these Amendments because we are dissatisfied with the original Bill, but because cases arose in which there might be doubt. We are not trying to redefine "agriculture" or define "intensive livestock". We have tried to deal with cases where buildings are not always used for one purpose alone. There has been a reference to a building being used for three purposes, in which case there will have to be an apportionment. I accept that that will mean two or three judgments from time to time, but, after all, this is all in the interests of farmers.
I appreciate that it sounds complex to refer to a building or buildings or parts of a building or buildings, but each has a precise meaning in relation to the case being examined. In order to bring about justice so that apportionment can take place and people with buildings in mixed use are not prevented from getting 50 per cent, derating, we need this sort of explanation.
I should have thought that hon. Members would be grateful, instead of complaining about the language. I believe that the hon. Member for Edinburgh,

West (Mr. Stodart) is grateful, because he recognises the difficulty that we faced in trying to cope with specific cases. There was, for example, the case of the granary which gave rise to yet another possibility of misinterpretation. Hence, one of the Amendments that we are considering.
This has improved the legislation, even though it may have spoiled the crisp, pristine English in which it was originally written.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 2, in page 2, line 13, at end insert:
(5)Any reference in the last foregoing subsection to a livestock production part of lands and heritages shall be construed as a reference to a part of lands and heritages—

(a) which consists of one or more buildings or one or more parts of buildings (not being in any case a building or part of a building used as a dwelling-house) used solely for the purpose of the keeping or breeding of livestock, and,
(b) which if it consisted of a building or buildings in separate occupation would be lands and heritages which would be required to be entered in the valuation roll.
(6)Without prejudice to subsection (4) of this section, a building or part of a building shall not be precluded from being treated, for the purposes of this Act, as a building or part of a building used solely for the purpose of the keeping or breeding of livestock merely because the building or part is to some extent or from time to time used in such a manner that, if it were a building wholly or at all times used in that manner, it would be an agricultural building within the meaning of section 7 of the Act of 1956.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Clause 2

INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 2, line 38, leave out from 'thereof' to end of line 8 on page 3 and insert:
(4) Any reference in this Act to a building or part of a building used solely for the purpose of the keeping or breeding of livestock shall be construed as including a reference to a building or part of a building occupied together with such building or part and used solely in connection with the use of such building or part and to any land so occupied and used.—[Mr. Buchan.]

10.55 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill which I now ask be given a Third Reading is aimed at a narrow and


limited purpose: it deals purely and simply with the anomalous position of intensive livestock farmers in Scotland who, under the present law, get neither full agricultural derating nor 50 per cent derating as is given to industry. Thai is the sole purpose of the Bill. I remember the incredulity of hon. Members in Committee—so much so that at one time I wondered whether I ought not to withdraw the Bill.
The significance of the Bill has been recognised by the leaders of the Scottish farming industry and certainly the President of the National Farmers Union, who understands the Bill, despite the "gobbledegook". He said:
The Government's decision to grant 50 per cent, relief will save our industry at least £100,000 per year from the outset. For this reason, and because it represents a real advance we welcome it.
The Bill attains its purpose by enabling the Secretary of State to make an Order partially derating a defined class of livestock buildings which are entered in the valuation roll. The broad categories of subjects which are to be eligible for the partial derating are, in plain terms, buildings and parts of buildings used solely for housing livestock; buildings and parts used solely in connection with the use of the buildings which house livestock, for example, grain stores, tool sheds and the like, and buildings and parts which are used whether concurently or successively for the purpose of livestock production and for other forms of agricultural activity.
Throughout these groups, a building or part is defined as including any pertinent thereof and any land occupied with the building and used solely in connection with its use. The hon. Gentleman who worried about the use of those words need not have looked at the dictionary, any lawyer will tell him that they have been defined often to the satisfaction of the Scottish courts. To define the activities which qualify a building for derating, we have used the definition of "breeding and keeping of livestock." This is contained in Section 86(3) of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948. By doing so we have avoided the introduction of a new and untried definition of intensive agriculture, with all the pit-

falls and difficulties which that would have involved.
The Bill does not create any liability for rates: its application is explicitly limited to buildings which under the existing statutory tests fall to be entered in the valuation roll. The Bill can therefore only have the effect of reducing liability to rates. No livestock farmer in Scotland will find his rates bill increased in consequence of this Measure.
Some attention has been focused upon the difficult question of how best to define buildings eligible for the partial derating, and our discussions have been fruitful in that the Bill has been improved—although I begin to wonder whether we should have bothered during discussion of some of these Amendments—following an undertaking given by my hon. Friend in Committee.
Some attention has been given to the question of whether the provisions of the Bill should be extended so that eligibility for partial derating was linked to compliance by the farmer with the Codes of Animal Welfare. Frankly, the two things are not related. It will be a bad thing if we start relating separate and penal provisions to something that is a statutory offence. I am sure that the House accepts that the Government's reaction was in no way prompted by insensitivity to the wellbeing of farm stock. The Government have already given clear evidence of their concern for the welfare of livestock in the provisions of Part I of the 1968 Act and the making of the codes of welfare.
I was not surprised to read that some people suggested that we should go the whole hog and give 100 per cent. derating across the board. I repeat that this was not the purpose of the Bill. Its purpose was narrow and specifically related to the anomaly which I mentioned at the outset. We are well aware of the point of view, particularly of the National Farmers Union on this subject. Rather predictably, it said that it would like 100 per cent, derating extended to all agricultural buildings. But that is not a matter for this Bill. It is a point of view for consideration in the comprehensive review of local government finance which is being carried out in the light of the Reports of the Royal Commissions on Local Government. In the meantime, I hope that all


hon. Members will agree that the Bill is a useful measure which will bring much benefit to livestock farmers in Scotland.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Constantly, both in Committee and tonight, we have had references to "intensive livestock production". I remind the Secretary of State that the application of rating to livestock buildings is at present by no means confined to what would be loosely described as intensive livestock production. Some traditional forms of livestock production have in recent years been subject to assessment and rating. The right hon. Gentleman takes too narrow a definition if he says that he is dealing here only with the question of intensive livestock production. In fact, a far wider range of farm buildings and types of production is affected. The Government should realise that the burden of rating is carried by a much wider range of agriculture than has always been admitted in our debates on the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill will not increase the rate burden on farmers in Scotland. I accept that in strict terms it does not, but the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson), both tonight and on other occasions, has voiced a general fear in the farming community that the number and types of building which will be taken in for assessment under the 1956 Act are likely nevertheless to grow. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) told us in Committee of the questionnaire issued by the assessor for Moray and Nairn, for example. Farmers in that part of Scotland, at least, realise that the assessors are still seeking ways of widening the range of farm buildings which can be assessed.
I accept what the Under-Secretary of State said, that the assessors are honourable men, they have been charged with a task to do, and they will not take advantage of this Bill to pursue what they should not pursue. But the Government must realise that there remain farm buildings in Scotland which are not assessed purely and simply because the assessors have not got round to them. We have by no means reached the end of the road as regards the number and type of buildings which assessors will

look at, whether the Bill is passed or not. The Secretary of State is not bringing the Bill forward at a point when the assessors have covered and assessed all the buildings likely to be assessed under legislation already in force. I am clear that assessors are still widening their net and taking in more and different types of farm buildings.
There has never been any grudgingness towards the Bill from this side of the House. We recognise the good intentions of the Government in trying to lighten the cost burden of rating on livestock buildings. We welcome what the Government are doing—but that is precisely what we said in relation to the 1956 Act. Throughout this Bill, we have asked what all the fuss was about, since the intention was clear in the 1956 Act. Our intention is once more clear in this Bill—I am with the Under-Secretary of State in that—but the debates we had on Report demonstrated once more how fraught with pitfalls the Bill is.
I accept that the Government are trying to remove elements of doubt. But I am afraid that in doing so they are introducing new ones. Our intentions may be clear to us but once the Bill gets into the hands of assessors, lawyers and courts they may put a quite different interpretation on it.
I exhort the right hon. Gentleman to watch the working of the Bill carefully. On both sides we have admitted that the present situation has created anomalies, but equally this Bill could give rise to a different set of anomalies. I welcome his admission that the whole question of local government finance and rating is under review and I hope that it will not be delayed. I hope that in our debates we have emphasised the need for a more comprehensive review than is attempted in the Bill.
The Government have tried to be helpful in the Bill, and I hope that the doubts I have expressed are proved wrong for the sake of the farming community. We do not want to be saddled with two sets of anomalies. Once we see the Bill working, I think that the Government may regret that they did not in one Measure grasp the whole nettle of the problem of agricultural rating instead of introducing a narrow Bill with a narrow purpose which has introduced so many problems of definition.
We have dealt with the Bill expeditiously and had only a short time to consider the problems which arose during its passage. The Amendments tonight have been difficult to understand and there was a problem in that we had only a short time in which to consult those outside in a position to advise us. I hope, therefore, that when the Bill goes to another place the Government will look again at some of the difficulties to see whether the Bill can be clarified and made more understandable. There is an opportunity there to try to overcome some of the difficulties.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: The Secretary of State was ill-advised to express great pleasure in and take great credit for the Bill reaching this stage. Despite the 50 per cent, derating—admittedly, this is a bonus for all who are affected by rating—there is a strong caveat among hon. Members and sections of the farming community about the effects of the Measure.
The Bill compounds if not a legislative misdemeanour then at any rate a legislative failure. The Joint Under-Secretary pointed out, as he frequently did in Committee, that everything had been checked with the Assessors Association, that the assessors were delighted with the Bill and fully understood its provisions. We accept and appreciate the good work that the assessors do, but we must take into account people other than assessors in a matter of this kind.
For the last 13 years the agricultural community has been faced with a steady encroachment of work for the assessor. All this has placed added burdens on those who produce food. Because the Bill compounds the failures of the 1956 Act, it does not really attempt to deal with the problem, and there is a feeling that this encroachment is liable to continue under the Measure. Evidence of this has been given tonight, as it was given in Committee.
The Joint Under-Secretary placed much of his defence of the Bill on the fact that it would not interfere with the definition of the present situation. Be that as it may, only a Labour Government could have allowed a Measure of this nature to reach this stage and then,

at the last moment, tabled a number of Amendments.
We have said enough about the definition of certain words and phrases to make it clear that the misgivings that have been expressed about the Bill are well founded. We have been told that the provisions have been carefully worked out and that every word has a meaning. But the Bill remains vague in many respects, with the interpretation still subject to argument. The layman is bound to be puzzled by phrases like "for the purpose of" and "from time to time". For these reasons there is great concern about the effects of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

NURSES (PAY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

11.13 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: The subject of this short debate has been the cause of great comment throughout the country in the Press, on television and on radio; in other words, through every means of mass communication. No pay claim has received or has deserved as much unanimous support as that of the nursing profession, and I believe that it has the support of the vast majority of hon. Members.
The Minister will be aware that Early Day Motion No. 45 has attracted 120 signatures from among my hon. Friends—and that without any great effort on the part of its sponsors. Nurses should write to their hon. Members and urge them to support that Motion, for in the absence of a militant trade union leader—or, as far as I know, any leader at all—their battle must be fought and won, or perhaps lost, on the Floor of this House.
The Motion expresses appreciation of what the Government have done, which is right and fair, but it then urges the Government to further action in giving
all nurses a substantial and immediate increase in remuneration, at least commensurate with increases given recently to other groups of lower paid workers.


I might have added "and other not so low paid workers."
There is an Amendment to the Motion, signed by eight Conservative Members, seeking to delete all reference to what the Government have done and simply urging a big salary increase for nurses. That comes very strangely from a party which is pledged to reduce public expenditure. It is even more strange, when we look at the signatures, to find among them some who, in 1962, in the debate on nurses' pay, voted against the nurses getting more than a 2½ per cent. increase. Those Tory Members should read that debate on nurses' pay in the OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1962; Vol. 659, c. 933.
The Minister of Health was the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who has recently gone on record as saying that an incomes policy was a nonsense and could not be worked. But in column 949 in that debate he used these words:
I do say that these are not circumstances in which it would be right or possible for the Government to recognise a clear and urgent case for a major exception from their own incomes policy in their own field of influence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1962; Vol. 659, c. 949.]
That was after ten years of allegedly Tory affluence. The norm then was 2½ per cent.
A former Minister of Health, the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), spoke about
the problem of how to devise, in the context of our economy, fair and just rewards for those people who are doing work which is socially valuable though not directly productive"—
these are magnificent words—
—work, in other words, which is not easily susceptible to precise evaluation by indices of productivity, but is no less precious simply because it is less precisely ponderable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1962; Vol. 659, c. 960.]
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is notorious for never using one syllable where six will do, but we took his point at that time. Nevertheless, we were very surprised when he dutifully went into the Lobby, having uttered those sentiments, against giving the nurses more than 2½ per cent. But it is not surprising, because it was he, as Minister of Health

in 1957, who vetoed an increase in pay for the lower paid staff in the hospital service which had been agreed by both sides of the negotiating machinery. So the record of the Conservative Government in this sphere is not one of which they can be proud.
I turn to the present Government. I think that they have done fairly well, given the economic difficulties with which we have been grappling. But a lot remains to be done.
In 1965 increases averaging a little less than 11 per cent. were granted. In 1967, following the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, further increases were given varying from nine to 14 per cent. for some grades. But that was to be payable in two stages, and nothing more was to be paid until 31st March, 1970. So it was strictly within the confines of the then prices and incomes policy.
More recently, a £48 a year taxable allowance was given for meals, which at once created an anomaly—and it was admitted as such by Treasury Ministers—compared with the 3s. tax-free luncheon vouchers which often go to less important workers. When the first instalment of that 9 per cent. was paid, up went residence charges for the nurses, and so many of them found that at the end of the day they were little, if any, better off. In January of this year the nurses received the other 5 per cent. of that 9 per cent., but in April hospital meal charges were again increased. It was at that point that the £48 taxable allowance was given.
The profession is now making two separate claims, one for those hospitals which have accepted the Salmon structure, and the other for those outside it. Perhaps I might give some examples, though they must necessarily be curtailed because the Minister knows them very well. For a chief nursing officer—that is, the top manager—the largest claim is for £4,500 a year against the present £2,950 maximum, but a chief nursing officer can receive as little of £2,180 For that he may be in control of as many as 20 hospitals spending millions of pounds a year and have under his authority thousands of nursing staff and ancillary staff of one kind and another, and tens of thousands of patients.
I was looking through the advertisements in the Observer last Sunday, and I found that Sandhurst Royal Military Academy was advertising for a head of the Department of War Studies. The salary for that gentleman is in the range £3,029 to £3,596, and it could be higher, depending on his qualifications and experience, plus a non-contributory pension scheme. I have no doubt that some people regard that as a very important job demanding high qualifications, but who would stand up in this House, or in the country, and say that that job was more important than, or indeed as important as, the job of running 20 hospitals? No manager anywhere in the British economy is paid so little for shouldering so much responsibility as chief nursing officers are paid, even if they get the maximum which they are demanding.
For a matron in a training hospital with 1,000 beds or more, the proposed scale is £2,400 to £2,900. At the bottom of the scale—that is to say, a matron in a training hospital with fewer than 200 beds—the scale would be £1,770 to £2,050. The maximum asked for for matrons in large non-training hospitals would be £2,350, and in the smallest non-teaching hospitals the maximum would be £1,950. If one goes down the scale a little to ward sisters, the demand is for anything from £1,400 to £1,600. The key people in hospitals are the ward sister and the staff nurse. The maximum for a staff nurse is now £925, rising from £785. In four years she gets to the maximum, which is less than £20 a week. The suggested increase is only up to £1,250, or less than the average earnings in industry. To that £1,250 would be added another £75 after three years on the maximum, but even then it would work out at only about £25 10s. a week gross. Nobody could claim that that was an unfair or extravagant demand.
For nurses aged over 25 the claim is for £700 going up by stages to £800, and for the under-25s from £525 up to £575 and then to £625. But it is admitted that the £48 meal allowance would be discontinued for that group. The new demand for staff in psychiatric hospitals is for £3,000 a year.
I have received letters from, particularly, male nurses with family respon-

sibilities. I must impress upon my hon. Friend—he knows well what the problem is—that this is probably the most difficult, demanding and testing hospital service work, and that for these men to live on a pittance keeping a family is completely indefensible.
If the claims are to be criticised, it is not because they are too extravagant or too greedy but because they are far too modest. I do not know what the total cost of full acceptance of the claims would be, but whatever it is, it should be met. The very future of the National Health Service might depend on it.
Coming back to the general problem, what we are seeing now is an increasing awareness by lower-paid workers, not only in the nursing profession but elsewhere, of their economic power. Militant and often unofficial action is seen to be paying off. For example, the unofficial strike of dustmen got an instantaneous response and all the demands were met—a 16 per cent. increase overnight, and good luck to them! Other lower-paid workers in local government got comparable increases. Miners got an increase of 10 per cent., stimulated by unofficial action. Building workers are to get a 24 per cent. increase. B.O.A.C. pilots seek an increase of up to 45 per cent., and nobody would class them as lower-paid workers. London dockers are now refusing over £30 a week; they want a lot more than that. Mr. Clive Jenkins secures an increase of over 20 per cent. for supervising engineers and technicians at B.E.A. and B.O.A.C.
The "white cap proletariat" of the hospitals are now on the march as well, but there is an important difference between them and the people that I have mentioned. They will not strike. It is unthinkable that nurses should strike. They are bady organised. Their negotiating machinery is not good. Their salaries have to be paid out of taxation, and everybody is "agin" increased taxation. But it is precisely because of those considerations that this House and this Government have a very heavy responsibility to ensure that these women and men are well looked after and generously treated.
After all, the general practitioners threatened to strike. There was no question of them not striking because it would damage the Health Service. They


threatened to strike. I should like to ask my hon. Friend what the increase in salary was for the average general practitioner over the last 10 years compared with a ward sister or a staff nurse in a medium-sized hospital.
One other thing is that the acuteness of the problem is high-lighted by the closure of wards and the employment of agency nurses. Wards have been closed in Scotland, but the employment of agency nurses is not such a problem there as in London and the South-East. There was a report in one of the London evening newspapers last week about the acuteness of the problem. It mentioned certain management committees and groups of hospitals, such as the East Kent Hospital Management Committee and the Brighton and Lewes group of hospitals. A new 20-bed maternity unit at Stoke Mandeville Hospital at Aylesbury has not yet opened although it was completed three months ago. It advertised for six midwives, but not one answered. University College Hospital mentions that it is using 30 to 40 agency nurses. I believe that an answer was given in another place about the cost of agency nurses. It is not a terribly big problem but it is evidence of the fact that there are not enough nurses coming forward and that some of the hospitals are under-staffed partly because of the inadequacy of remuneration.
The Government's future plans for their incomes policy are to be published shortly. In fact, I think they were published by the Daily Express last Saturday unofficially. It is clear that the Government intend to have an annual wage increase norm of anything from 2½ per cent, to 4½ per cent. But it has been made clear that lower-paid workers in the public service and those whose productivity and efficiency cannot be measured accurately will get above that norm. Presumably that includes nurses.
The incomes policy has been breached in many places and it has been abandoned in all but name by the Government, and it would be a criminal outrage on the part of the Government if they now sought to salvage something from the wreckage of their policy by appearing to stand firm against the most dedicated and responsible but weakest profession in the land. I cannot believe that the Government will be so crassly

stupid and so unmindful of their social responsibilities. I think the legitimate and modest pay demands of the nurses must be met. Public opinion must be educated to understand and accept that the nurses are sick and tired of sympathy and admiration for their arduous and dedicated work. People must learn to translate their noble sentiments into hard cash. That is the one certain test of their sincerity.
I hope the Minister will not seek refuge behind the skirts of the Whitley Council. I hope he will state clearly and unequivocally that his Department is wholly in favour of a substantial and immediate increase in the emoluments of the most tolerant, long suffering, responsible and respected profession in the land.

11.32 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Dr. John Dunwoody): I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) for raising this issue tonight because it gives me the opportunity to express the appreciation shared by this House and by the whole country of the magnificent work and devotion to duty of our nurses in the National Health Service. This for me is no politician's platitude; 14 years working as a doctor in daily contact with the nursing profession gives me a degree of understanding of their problem denied to most hon. Members. I have been impressed by the response of the general public to the recent appeal for their support in the nurses' cause, and I am sure that the country as a whole, as well as the nursing profession and their representatives, will be taking the greatest interest in this debate.
As my hon. Friend has said, the pay and conditions of service of nurses employed in the National Health Services in Great Britain are determined not by the Secretary of State but by a process of negotiation between the two sides of the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council; the Management Side representing hospital management and local authorities, and the Staff Side comprising professional organisations and unions representing all the grades of staff concerned.
I am not, however, suggesting that the negotiation of salaries on the Whitley Council relieves the Health Ministers of


all responsibility for nurses' pay. Representatives of the three Health Departments serve on the Management Side and play their full part in negotiation, and when any of the National Health Service Whitley Councils has reached an agreement the statutory approval of the Secretary of State is required before it is put into operation. Only once since the Whitley Councils were first set up in 1948 has approval not been forthcoming, but that did not concern nurses, and, I would remind the House, it was when the party opposite was in office.
But while we do not leave all the responsibility to the Whitley Council, we certainly do not take over their function. We believe that nurses' pay is best dealt with by the normal processes of collective bargaining, for which the Whitley Council provides the forum and in which the nursing profession is well organised and represented.
Since this Government took office the system has worked well and there have been substantial improvements in nurses' pay. In 1965 the Whitley Council reached a two-year settlement giving increases in pay averaging just on 11 per cent. This settlement, representing a considerable improvement in nurses' pay, was reached by agreement between the two sides of the council. The circumstances were in marked contrast to the difficulties which had attended nurses' pay claims under the previous Administration. The House will recall that under that Administration nurses were the first victims of the attempt in 1961 to hold pay increases in the public sector to 2½percent. This led to a very difficult and acrimonious period of negotiation which in turn led to arbitrations in successive years.
In 1967, following a joint recommendation from the two sides of the Whitley Council, the whole question of nurses' pay and related conditions of service was referred by the Government to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. The board carried out a comprehensive review, and as a result of its recommendations, and the subsequent negotiations in the Whitley Council, nurses received further increases of 9 per cent. and in some cases 14 per cent. The latter increases were paid in two stages, the first stage being paid from 1st October, 1967,

and the second from 1st January, 1969. With other major improvements to which I shall refer later, the total estimated cost of the board's main proposals on pay and conditions of service was over £37 millions a year. The board recommended that this comprehensive settlement should run until 31st March, 1970, and the Whitley Council is now embarking on a review in readiness for a new settlement to operate from 1st April, 1970.
At the time of the last settlement both the National Board for Prices and Incomes and the Government recognised that exceptional treatment for nurses was called for within the terms of current incomes policy. While it is always possible to criticise pay agreements, a major settlement costing over £37 millions a year was a definite and major step forward.
My hon. Friend has touched on the question whether nurses are among the lower paid. In considering the earnings of nurses in relation to those of other workers the information in the Department of Employment and Productivity Survey of Earnings will, of course, be relevant, and I think that this will provide more meaningful information than any answer that I might try to give now. Moreover, the White Paper on Productivity Prices and Incomes will be published shortly. I can assure my hon. Friend, that the position of nurses will certainly be given the most serious consideration in the light of the guidance it gives on the problems of low pay so far as it may be relevant to the lower nursing grades.
The board paid particular attention to the difficulties of staffing psychiatric and geriatric hospitals. It recommended an increase in the mental nursing "lead" from £50 to £100 per annum, the extension of the lead to all grades working in psychiatric hospitals and the introduction for the first time of a similar "lead" for nurses working in geriatric and chronic sick hospitals. As a further measure to relieve staffing difficulties in psychiatric hospitals the board recommended an extension of the system of overtime payment to cover grades up to and including ward sister/charge nurse in those hospitals.
For student nurses, besides the pay increases already mentioned, the board recommended special rates of training


allowance for students in general training who were over 25 years of age and the extension to all students of special duty payment for duty at night and at weekends. Students undertaking psychiatric nurse training also benefited from the increase to £100 per annum of the mental "lead" to which I have already referred.
Although some of the board's recommendations had a mixed reception in the nursing profession and some gave rise to certain anomalies between one grade and another, I think that by and large the board's objectives were right in their intention and were successfully applied by the Whitley Council in the agreement it subsequently negotiated.
My hon. Friend has asked me to compare the increases in nurses' pay with those for doctors. I think perhaps a more valuable comparison can be made with increases in hospital doctors' pay because their two occupations are in almost exactly the same field. Over the period 1963–69 nurses as a whole have had larger increases than consultants, although they were not so great as those for junior hospital medical staff.
The last general pay increase under that agreement was operative from 1st January this year, but time has passed since the board's report and a new review of nurses' pay by the Whitley Council has now been initiated, set in motion by a Staff Side claim. This review is highly important, and the Government most certainly recognise it as such. There are more than 300,000 nurses in over 100 grades in the various parts of the National Health Service. This time the negotiations have to take into account the major changes taking place at the present time in the nursing administrative structure as hospitals replace the traditional hierarchy by the pattern recommended by the Salmon Committee. This will stimulate efficiency in the provision of nursing services, and in the long run it will streamline the pay structure, but for the present it means that there are two separate sets of scales to be negotiated, one for the old structure and one for the new; and they have to maintain a reasonable relationship one with the other.
Perhaps I might say a few words about the posts in the new Salmon grading

structure because this is a subject which the profession—indeed, the whole hospital service as well as my Department—regards as of the highest importance. The National Board for Prices and Incomes had as part of its remit the salaries to be paid to the chief nursing officer posts, which are the senior posts in the new structure. It had a very difficult task because at that time no group of hospitals had completely gone over to the new structure. Indeed, at the time of its report there were only five chief nursing officers in post, and they had all been very recently appointed. Its assessment was, therefore, necessarily tentative. Since then the new structure has become more firmly established, and it is now possible to arrive at a more positive assessment of the considerable responsibilities carried by chief nursing officers. The Whitley Council will have to translate these into salary terms.
At the other end of the spectrum the council will no doubt be paying particular regard to the very special problems of student nurses. As hon. Members will recall, the council made provision for one of these earlier in the year, at the time of the introduction of the pay-as-you-eat system, by introducing a special meals allowance of £48 per annum to meet the dietary needs of these younger nurses. It was made clear at the time that this was an interim measure, and no doubt the council will be considering how this will be taken into account in reaching a new agreement.
Between the grades of student nurse and chief nursing officer there are a large number of complicated grading and salary problems to be considered. The hospital service is aware that, despite the overall benefit obtained from the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, there are some anomalies still to be removed; they have caused dissatisfaction among some staff, and I am sure that the Whitley Council will have these problems very much in mind in the course of its negotiations.
My honourable Friend mentioned the employment of agency nurses by National Health Service hospitals as one of the factors which should be borne in mind when considering nurses pay. The employment of these nurses is a longstanding problem. It is in the main a


problem of the Greater London area where, in spite of controls on their employment, numbers have increased in the last year or so, and I am concerned about this. This is a problem not merely because of cost but because it is desirable to have a stable nursing team, and excessive reliance on agency nurses tends to have an unsettling effect on the permanent staff.
While it may be that a substantial pay increase would make more nurses willing to take employment with National Health Service hospitals—indeed, one would certainly expect such to be the case—it will not necessarily solve the problem completely. The attractions of self-employed status are very considerable from the point of view of many nurses.
with its freedom to move from one post to another as they wish and to be selective in the type of work they will undertake.
As far as the Staff Side's present claim is concerned, I have already described the Whitley machinery, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the claim in advance of consideration and negotiations—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at seventeen minutes to Twelve o'clock.